The nature of democracy is that few citizens get governments they approve of entirely. Some will largely oppose the current government, and others will largely approve, albeit with areas they disapprove of. As such, voting is often a matter of compromise.

Research from the University of Gothenburg suggests that effective communication regarding the robustness of political decision-making can diminish any sense of unfairness such moral or ideological compromises might engender.

“Accepting a political loss is, however, predicated on the game having been played by the rules without cheating,” the researchers explain.

Losing well

They suggest that there is a distinct difference between losing elections and then losing based on the decisions made in between elections. Still, regardless of the difference, if people feel that decisions are unfair, it can quickly result in them losing faith in democracy itself.

“Losers in politics easily get prejudiced. The loser might feel that the decision-making process was flawed. But if the loser side routinely blames the other side for winning unfairly, the incumbent government’s ability to deal with societal challenges will be undermined,” they continue.

The researchers examined how adults in Sweden and Norway responded to the various political decisions made in between elections after a government not of their choosing was elected. They were especially interested to understand whether there was anything the losing politicians could do to encourage their supporters to be “good losers”.

A fair fight

While Trump is the obvious exception, most leaders of losing parties hold speeches on election night whereby they concede defeat and accept the outcome of the election in a fair fight with their opponent. The researchers transferred these kinds of messages to controversial political decisions that were made between elections to see how people reacted.

The volunteers were shown a proposal for a local ban on begging in public places and also changes to road user charges for diesel cars, which was an actual proposal in Norway at the time.

“The results show that voters on the losing side who received a good loser message from their political leaders were less inclined to find fault with the political decision-making process than the losers who did not receive this kind of message,” the researchers explain.

As such, any sense of unfairness among those on the losing side is significantly reduced if their leaders can underpin the rules of democracy and that the electoral process was a fair one.

“Good loser messages must confirm that the losing camp has a point before the party leader reminds them of the rules of the game. Party leaders should therefore confirm that it is wrong to raise the retirement age for public sector employees, to close the local school or whatever, and only then remind their sympathizers of the obligations entailed in a democracy, just as they do on election night,” the authors continue.

The results strongly suggest that opposition leaders can play a crucial role in maintaining faith in democracy and reducing any discontent among their supporters by reaffirming the inherent fairness of the system. The proposed measure of good loser messages requires no more from party leaders than acting between the elections in the way that they usually do on the night of the elections by publicly acknowledging the rules of the game in a democracy.