When Suffrage Becomes Suffering: How the
Electoral College Affects Emotions

2025 Law & Society Association Annual Meeting

Emma Marshall, JD, MA

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Katherine P Hazen JD, PhD

Northeastern University

Eve M. Brank, JD, PhD

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

The Electoral College

Direct Electoral Process

Bush v. Gore, 2000

INDirect Electoral Process

Chiafalo v. Washington, 2020; Duquette & Schultz, 2013

The Anti-majoritarian Electoral College

Experience of voting in Electoral College

Farber & Sherry, 2013; Issacharoff, 2003; Jones, 2024

Discrete emotions & (In)Justice

Avery & Quinones, 2002; Barclay & Kiefer, 2014

When individuals attempt to determine whether or not an injustice has occurred, they tend to pay attention to at least two pieces of information: the outcome and the process.

Research on the psychology of fairness in other contexts, however, suggests that people care deeply about the fairness of decision-making processes (Tyler, 2017) and value having a voice in that process (Folger, 1977). For example, when people are given the opportunity to vote in majority-rule elections, they tend to view the process as more fair, and the results as more legitimate, even when their preferred candidate loses (Bo et al., 2010).

However, the benefits of voice are neither automatic nor universal (de Vries et al., 2002; Darmofal, 2010). When people feel like their voice is ignored or disregarded, they may instead perceive the process as more unfair than those who had no voice at all (Avery & Quinones, 2002).

This experience of repeated voice disregard can also result in heightened negative emotions like anger and a desire to avoid similar experiences in the future (Avery & Quinones, 2002; Barclay & Kiefer, 2014).

Emotions produced by outcome (primary) and process (secondary) appraisals

Krehbiel and Cropanzo (2000)

Other studies have found a similar relationship between experiences of injustice and negative emotions like anger. And suggest that emotions are produced in this context according to traditional cognitive appraisal theories – ie., that emotion results from primary and secondary appraisal processes.

For example, Krehbiel and Cropanzano (2000) found that people tend to experience more negative emotions like anger and sadness when an unfavorable outcome results from an unfair procedure.

Whereas more positive emotions like happiness are primarily the result of a favorable outcome and are less sensitive to process-based concerns.

According to cognitive appraisal theories, emotion typically results from this kind of judgement. A general emotional response begins by an initial primary appraisal of an event as either beneficial (favorable) or harmful (unfavorable) in relation to a persons goal.

When we talk about outcome favorability here - we are referring to whether or not an outcome is personally beneficial. So an outcome could be favorable, even if it is the result of an unfair process.

IN this research we wanted to see if a similar pattern emerged in emotional responses to the EC, wherein more positive emotions like happiness would be primarily driven by outcome favorability but more negative emotions like anger, would result from both outcome and process fairness related judgements.

Additionally, we were also interested in examining whether that heightened experience of anger or other negative emotions might discourages people from wanting to participate in future Presidential elections or in other elections with more straightforward democratic processes.

Methods

Participants

Pilot Study 1

POTUS 2016

N = 257
100% Winner-takes-all
M-turk

Pilot Study 2

POTUS 2016

N = 175
- n = 95 (54%) Winner-take-all
- n = 80 (46%) District-based
M-turk

Study 1

POTUS 2020

N = 783
- n = 395 (50%) Winner-takes-all
- n = 295 (38%) District-based
Prolific

Materials & Procedure

Results

Pilot Study 1: Favorable outcomes produce HAPPY voters

After controlling for demographics, the people who thought the 2016 election was:

Unfair & Unfavorable: -1.29 (most unhappy group) Fair & Unfavorable: -0.76 (still unhappy, but less so)

Unfair & Favorable: 1.99 (happy despite unfairness) Fair & Favorable: 2.01 (happiest group, but only slightly above unfair/favorable)

As expected, happiness was primarily the result of people’s satisfaction with the outcome of the election. And consistent, with the idea that happiness is primarily an emotional response that is based on people’s view of how favorable or unfavorable the outcome is, the whether or not people viewed the process itself as fair did not have a significant effect on happiness (p = 0.052), after controlling for other demo variables.

Moreover, the model explains 58.5% of the variance in happiness (R² = 0.5847) indicating that outcome favorability is doing most of the work here.

Pilot Study 1: Both favorable outcomes and unfair procedures influenced ANGER

Similarly, as expected, participants’ higher levels of anger towards the EC system seemed to occur when an unfavorable outcome was paired with some type of unfair procedure.

Voters who perceived the EC as unfair and experienced unfavorable outcomes reported the highest levels of anger.

Unfair & Unfavorable (0): 1.28 (highest anger)

Fair & Unfavorable (0): 0.17 (reduced anger)

Unfair & Favorable (1): -1.11 (low anger despite unfairness)

Fair & Favorable (1): -1.99 (lowest anger)

Although the interaction effect was not significant (p = 0.73), there was a main effect of both outcome favorability and process fairness perceptions on people’s level of anger p < 0.001).

So while the effect of fairness on anger doesn’t significantly differ between people who experienced favorable vs. unfavorable outcomes, there was a pattern that emerged that supports the idea that anger resulted from both outcome and process related concerns.

Notably, these factors only explain 37.7% of the variance in anger (R² = 0.3771), so there is likely more going on here.

Pilot Study 2: Similar pattern emerges
for other negative emotions

In study 2, we were able to replicate these results for happy and anger emotions and also identify similar patterns for other negative emotions including sadness, anxiety, and fear (all ps < .001).

While none of the interaction effects were significant, we did find that both outcome favorability and seeing the process as fair had a significant main effect on anger, sadness, anxiety and fear (all ps < .001).

Anger

Both winning an election and seeing the process as fair significantly reduced anger. Details: People whose preferred candidate won showed much lower anger (β = -3.24). Perceiving the process as fair also reduced anger (β = -1.04), especially among those who voted for the candidate who lost the overall election.

Anxiety

Election outcomes, fairness perceptions, and gender all influenced anxiety levels. Details: Favorable outcomes substantially reduced anxiety (β = -2.96). Fairness perceptions also decreased anxiety (β = -1.07). Men reported somewhat higher anxiety levels (β = 0.66). Impact for Losers: For electoral losers, perceiving the process as fair reduced anxiety by 87%.

Fear

Winning and fairness both significantly reduced fear, with a potential interaction. Details: Favorable outcomes strongly decreased fear (β = -2.73). Fairness perceptions also reduced fear (β = -1.10). The marginally significant interaction (p = 0.08) suggests fairness matters more for reducing fear among losers than winners. Dramatic Effect: Among electoral losers, perceiving the process as fair reduced fear by 93%.

Sadness

Outcome and fairness both influenced sadness, but with smaller effects than for other emotions. Fairness had the smallest impact on sadness compared to other emotions, but still reduced it by 79% among people who voted for a losing candidate.

Overall, these findings reveal that while winning or losing an election is the strongest determinant of a person’s emotional response, especially for positive emotions like happiness.

Perceiving the electoral process as fair also seems to play an important role in reducing negative emotional responses to the electoral college, especially for those whose voted for the candidate that ultimately lost the election.

Study 1: Do these emotions predict future voting intentions?

We also found similar patterns for people’s emotional responses in Study 1 with the 2020 election data. But we also wanted to see if people’s emotions towards the EC significantly predicted their intentions to vote in future elections.

To determine the role that outcome favorability, pj judgments, and emotions played in producing people’s intentions to vote in the future we ran a series of beta regressions. Here you can see the basic structure of our three nested models.

We first ran a simple model with only outcome favorability and demographic factors predicting intent to vote in future elections. Next, we ran a more complex model that added in pj variables to see if people’s perceptions of process fairness better predicted people’s intentions to vote.

Finally, we added in the emotions variables, so that our full model included outcome favorability, pj, and emotions.

Study 1: Favorable outcomes, unfair procedures, and emotions
predict future voting intentions

This plot shows the beta regression coefficients with 95% confidence intervals for our three different models. Here’s how to interpret it:

Coefficient Interpretation: Each dot represents the estimated effect size (coefficient) of that variable on intent to vote in future elections. Dots to the right of zero indicate a positive relationship (increases intent), while dots to the left of zero indicate a negative relationship (decreases intent). Confidence Intervals: The horizontal lines through each dot represent the 95% confidence intervals. When these intervals don’t cross the zero line (the vertical dashed line), the effect is statistically significant.

The models have been color coded so that you can see the coefficients for each of our nested models:

Green dots = Results from the Full Model (including justice variables and emotions) Blue dots = Results from the Justice Model (without emotions) Red dot = Result from the Outcome Only Model And finally, Gray dots: Factors that weren’t statistically significant

Basic Model (Outcome Only): This only considered outcomes favorability in 2020 as a predictor and explained very little of the variation in intent (only about 1%).

PJustice Model: This added procedural justice variables (fairness, voice, trust, neutrality, and respect) to the outcome favorability variable and demographics. This model performed significantly better than the basic model, explaining about 4.3% of the variation in intent.

Note that in this PJ model:

Fairness had a positive effect on intent Voice (being heard) had a positive effect
But Respect, surprisingly, had a negative relationship with intent
Trust and neutrality weren’t statistically significant

Finally, we tested the Full Model which added in the emotional variables (anger, happiness, anxiety, sadness, and fear) to the justice model.

For the full model:

Happiness had a positive effect on intent. Anxiety had a positive effect. Fear had a negative effect. Anger and sadness weren’t significant

The likelihood ratio tests confirmed that each more complex model was significantly better than the simpler one. While AIC (which balances model fit and simplicity) favors the full model, BIC favors the simpler models, suggesting some caution because we almost certainly have an issue with overfitting.

SO while this model performed better – it still only explained about 7% of the variation in intent to vote.

HOWEVER, You can see how adding variables changed some coefficients. For example, the effect of Outcome Favorability disappeared entirely when all the emotions variables were added into the full model. This suggests that emotions might mediate this relationship, but we would need more power to run the full model and test the full paths between outcome favorability -> PJ -> Emotions -> Intent that this model hints at.

Discussion

Emotional responses to the Electoral College shaped by both Outcome Favorability and Process-Fairness
Evidence that vote disregard in EC produces unique emotional experience
Future research needed to test Frustration effect and impact of repeated voice disregard on voting behaviors

Overall our findings suggest that both election outcomes and perceptions of fairness in the EC process affect how people feel about the experience of voting, and that having one’s vote disregarded by the EC might just be a uniquely infuriating experience, that has consequences for people’s future voting behavior.

However, these findings should all be considered preliminary. For one thing, the 2020 election was unusual in that there was a coordinated effort to convince a significant portion of the population that the results were illegitimate– ie., stop the steal. So, it is not entirely clear how much of our results are due to some unique facet of our current political moment.

Future research with higher-powered samples and longitudinal data tracking voting behavior across multiple electoral cycles are needed to better understand the nature of these relationships. Especially given that previous scholarship on the “frustration effect” suggests that repeated experiences of having one’s voice disregarded are often needed to produce changes in voice behavior.

But we hope to keep exploring these questions, in bigger, longitudinal datasets like the American National Election Survey (https://electionstudies.org/data-center/2024-time-series-study/) that can show us how these patterns and relationships might play out over time and across larger groups of votes.

We also hope to further explore whether people tend to discriminate between the EC and other electoral systems that count votes more normally. Does the experience of having one’s vote disregarded in the EC system may result in increased negative emotions towards the EC which in turn discourages participation in future presidential elections while simultaneously encouraging participation in other federal elections where the EC does not play a role in determining the outcome? If so, it may help to explain some of the voter turnout issues we see in the US.