Systemic Exhaustion and the Limits of Reform: An Analysis of Perceived Political Exclusion and Anti-System Preferences

Full report

On this page

Executive Conclusion

The contemporary United States is undergoing a profound and measurable crisis of external political efficacy—the fundamental belief among citizens that governmental authorities and institutions are responsive to their demands. However, an empirical diagnosis of this phenomenon reveals that widespread perceived political exclusion does not automatically or uniformly translate into a broad-based desire for violent revolution. Rather, it engenders a complex matrix of behavioral responses ranging from democratic apathy to systemic reformist preferences, and, under specific psychological conditions, anti-system mobilization.

The empirical evidence strongly indicates that a supermajority of the American public expresses a preference for fundamentally restructuring major political institutions, distinguishing this sentiment from ordinary incumbent dissatisfaction. According to recent longitudinal polling from the Pew Research Center and the American National Election Studies (ANES), overwhelming majorities believe the political system requires major changes or complete reform. This preference is driven by the perception that structural barriers—ranging from algorithmic gerrymandering to the disproportionate influence of economic elites—render conventional voting mechanisms highly ineffective.

Crucially, the manifestation of this perceived exclusion depends entirely on its intersection with internal political efficacy (the belief in one’s own political competence) and political interest. When perceived exclusion is combined with low political interest, the result is voter apathy and civic withdrawal. Conversely, when perceived exclusion meets high political interest and high internal efficacy, it produces "Dissidents"—citizens who abandon traditional reformist politics in favor of extra-institutional protest, anti-establishment voting, and support for constitutional restructuring.

Furthermore, the data necessitates a strict bifurcation between "revolutionary preference" (defined here as support for replacing or fundamentally altering constitutional institutions) and "support for political violence." While revolutionary preferences regarding institutional architecture are highly prevalent and mainstream, actual support for political violence is severely overstated in early survey literature due to expressive responding and measurement errors.

Ultimately, the breakdown of "losers' consent"—the willingness of defeated electoral factions to accept the legitimacy of the outcome—has transitioned from a temporary phenomenon linked to isolated electoral defeats into a chronic condition of perceived permanent exclusion. This systemic exhaustion creates a fertile environment for authoritarian populism and radical democratic reforms alike, as citizens increasingly seek alternative decision-making models outside the bounds of conventional representative democracy.

Conceptual Framework: Efficacy, Exclusion, and the Anatomy of Discontent

To accurately assess whether political exclusion drives citizens toward fundamental system change, it is necessary to establish precise conceptual boundaries between ordinary dissatisfaction, reformist intent, revolutionary preference, and support for political violence. These distinctions are anchored in the psychological measurements of political efficacy and the structural realities of democratic responsiveness.

Distinguishing Ordinary Dissatisfaction from Revolutionary Preference

Ordinary political dissatisfaction typically operates within the bounds of Wlezien’s "thermostatic model" of public opinion1. In a functioning representative democracy, public opinion acts as a thermostat: when policy moves too far in one direction (e.g., spending becomes too high), the public signals for a correction by voting for the opposition party to lower the "temperature"1. This model assumes a baseline level of systemic responsiveness; ordinary dissatisfaction seeks a change in personnel (e.g., voting out an incumbent) to achieve a change in policy. It operates under the assumption that the system itself is functional, but currently occupied by the wrong administrators.

Revolutionary preference, in the context of advanced democracies, is defined not inherently by a desire for bloodshed, but by a demand for the fundamental replacement or deep restructuring of major political institutions5. This includes support for abolishing the Electoral College, implementing term limits for the Supreme Court, rewriting the Constitution, or transitioning to alternative models such as direct democracy or technocratic authoritarianism7. When the thermostatic feedback loop is perceived to be severed—meaning the public signals for a change but the institutional machinery fails to respond—citizens abandon reformist tinkering in favor of revolutionary preference.

Support for political violence is an extreme behavioral subset, defined as the justification of physical force, intimidation, or harm against political opponents or state apparatuses to achieve political goals9. It must be analyzed completely separately from revolutionary preference, as citizens may desire total constitutional replacement strictly through peaceful, albeit radical, legal and civic mechanisms.

The Metrics of Efficacy

The primary variable governing these behavioral distinctions is political efficacy, which the American National Election Studies (ANES), the European Social Survey (ESS), and the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) divide into two distinct psychological constructs11:

1. Internal Political Efficacy (IPE): A citizen's belief in their own competence to understand and participate effectively in politics. It asks, "Do I possess the skills and knowledge to engage in the political process?"11.

2. External Political Efficacy (EPE): A citizen's belief that governmental authorities, political parties, and state institutions are responsive to their demands. It asks, "Can people like me influence what government does?"11.

The critical diagnostic inquiry is whether a catastrophic collapse in external political efficacy forces citizens to abandon thermostatic, reformist politics in favor of anti-system alternatives.

The Architecture of Perceived Exclusion in the Contemporary United States

The decline of external political efficacy in the United States is not a recent anomaly but a long-term trend documented by ANES time-series data dating back to the 1960s14. ANES utilizes survey items such as "People like me don't have any say about what the government does" and "I don't think public officials care much what people like me think" to track this decline17.

To understand why this perception has metastasized, it is necessary to investigate specific forms of perceived political exclusion, separating the factual institutional characteristics of the U.S. political system from the subjective, often hyperbolic partisan narratives constructed around them.

 

The synthesis of these factual barriers creates a highly visible environment of uncompetitive elections and a persistent inability to achieve desired policy through normal channels. When citizens recognize that their preferences consistently diverge from policy outcomes—and that their votes do not correct this divergence—the thermostatic model of democracy breaks down1.

Causal Pathways: How Low External Efficacy Translates to Political Action

When external political efficacy collapses, citizens do not react uniformly. The behavioral output of perceived political exclusion is heavily moderated by the individual's level of internal political efficacy (confidence in their own political understanding) and their baseline level of political interest. This dynamic is best explained by the Gamson Hypothesis.

The Gamson Hypothesis and the Mobilization of Discontent

William Gamson’s classic hypothesis posits that the combination of high internal political efficacy and low external political efficacy (often proxied as low political trust) creates the optimal psychological conditions for political mobilization, particularly outside conventional institutional channels27.

Political behavior research commonly categorizes citizens into a typology based on the intersection of these two dimensions11:

The crucial diagnostic finding here is that political exclusion matters vastly more when combined with high political interest. People who care intensely about politics, possess a strong understanding of policy, and believe they are highly competent (high internal efficacy), but who simultaneously believe that institutional avenues are entirely closed to them (low external efficacy), do not simply disengage. They become "Dissidents"22.

Dissidents are highly active, but they redirect their energy away from conventional electoral politics—which they view as a rigged or futile game—and toward anti-system behaviors22. Research utilizing the ANES and the European Social Survey confirms that Dissidents are significantly more likely to participate in protest marches, sign petitions, engage in political consumerism, and vote for populist or anti-establishment candidates22. They abandon reformist politics because reform implies working within the system; when the system is perceived as the barrier itself, fundamental restructuring becomes the logical preference.

Conversely, individuals with low external efficacy but low political interest and low internal efficacy (the Alienated) fall into deep apathy. They perceive the system as unresponsive but lack the psychological drive, resources, or civic skills to challenge it, resulting in chronic nonvoting29. Thus, perceived political exclusion does not uniformly cause anti-system preference; it only does so among the politically engaged and self-efficacious.

Losers' Consent vs. Permanent Exclusion

To understand the transition from temporary reformist dissatisfaction to deep-seated revolutionary preference, it is essential to examine the concept of "losers' consent"—the mechanism by which democratic regimes maintain stability and legitimacy.

In a healthy democratic system, elections inherently create winners and losers. Extensive research by Christopher Anderson and colleagues establishes that electoral losers systematically report lower satisfaction with democracy, lower external efficacy, and less trust in institutions than winners (a phenomenon known as the "winner-loser gap")33.

However, in robust democracies, this dissatisfaction is typically temporary. The losing faction consents to being governed because they believe the electoral process was procedurally fair, and, crucially, they retain a realistic probability of winning power in subsequent cycles36. The system maintains its legitimacy because losing is viewed as a transient state.

The crisis of the contemporary United States is the mutation of temporary electoral defeat into perceived permanent structural exclusion. When institutional characteristics—such as uncompetitive districts, extreme gerrymandering, or the disproportionate power of the Senate and Electoral College—convince a political faction that they can never achieve majoritarian power regardless of their vote share, losers' consent evaporates18.

If citizens believe that losing an election is not a temporary setback but a permanent condition enforced by a rigged institutional architecture, the legitimacy of the political system collapses33. Repeated perceptions of permanent exclusion transform ordinary, disappointed voters into systemic Dissidents. They no longer seek to win the next election under the current rules; they seek to change the rules entirely. As established by cross-national data, when political distrust functions as an unconditional push-factor away from the status quo, citizens begin to view representative democracy itself as inherently flawed and become open to alternative models8.

Distinguishing Reformist Desires from Revolutionary Preferences: The Empirical Evidence

Does the American public broadly want revolution? If defined as the desire to completely restructure the system of government and replace major political institutions, the empirical data suggests a resounding yes. If defined as violent overthrow, the answer is a definitive no.

The Majoritarian Preference for Systemic Overhaul

Recent polling indicates that ordinary reformism—incremental changes to specific policies—is no longer the median preference of the American electorate. Rigorous surveys by the Pew Research Center in 2021 found that 85% of Americans stated their political system "needs major changes or needs to be completely reformed"7. By 2023 and 2024, corroborating data indicated that 75% to 85% of adults believe the political system requires a "complete overhaul," with a mere 4% believing the system is working extremely or very well6.

Trust in the federal government remains near historic lows, hovering below 30%7. The Earth4All global survey (2024) similarly found that 69% of respondents in G20 nations want major changes to their economic systems, and only 31% trust their government to make decisions that will benefit the majority of people in the long term5.

This data points directly to revolutionary preference, strictly defined. Majorities across partisan lines support drastic constitutional changes. For example, 2023 Pew surveys show massive support for term limits for Congress, age limits for federal elected officials and Supreme Court justices, and abolishing the Electoral College7. Because conventional legislative avenues are viewed as hopelessly deadlocked by incumbent self-interest, voters increasingly display openness to alternative models.

Cross-national ESS data and CSES studies demonstrate that citizens with plummeting external efficacy are highly susceptible to authoritarian alternatives or populist strongmen who promise to bypass democratic gridlock8. When the system is viewed as entirely unresponsive, anti-establishment voting becomes a rational mechanism to shock the system. Citizens may elect explicitly disruptive candidates not necessarily because they agree with their specific policy platforms, but because those candidates promise to dismantle the institutions that voters feel excluded by6. The appeal of technocracy, direct democracy, and authoritarianism rises proportionally with the decline in external efficacy8.

The Boundary of Anti-System Behavior: Analyzing Support for Political Violence

While support for systemic institutional overhaul is a clear majority position, actual support for political violence remains a fringe phenomenon, despite alarming media narratives and superficial survey interpretations to the contrary.

Earlier survey research frequently generated headlines suggesting that between 15% and 40% of Americans supported political violence or "lethal partisanship." The widely cited work of Kalmoe and Mason initially appeared to track a massive spike in Americans justifying violence against political opponents10.

However, advanced political behavior research and subsequent methodological critiques have demonstrated that these figures are substantially overstated42.

The Illusion of Mass Violent Intent and Expressive Responding

When survey respondents are asked abstract questions about whether violence is "justified" to advance political goals, large portions of the electorate engage in expressive responding (also known as partisan cheerleading). They use the survey as a mechanism to signal their intense distaste for the opposing party, rather than signaling an actual intent to commit, fund, or endorse physical harm10.

Furthermore, rigorous methodological analyses by Westwood et al. reveal that random responding by disengaged survey-takers artificially inflates the estimates of support for political violence. When accounting for measurement error, respondent inattention, and expressive responding, the median estimate of support for partisan violence drops from roughly 18.5% to approximately 2.9%42.

Crucially, when respondents are presented with concrete acts of violence (e.g., assault, murder, arson) rather than abstract concepts of "justified force," support drops to the level of statistical noise42. Nearly all respondents, regardless of partisan affiliation, support criminally charging suspects who commit acts of political violence42.

The True Danger: Affective Polarization and the "Need for Chaos"

This does not imply that the risk of violence is zero. While the broad public remains pacified and prefers legal institutional overhaul, severe affective polarization—the emotional hostility toward out-partisans—creates a permissive environment for fringe actors42.

The small subset of the population that genuinely supports political violence is largely defined not merely by low external efficacy, but by non-political psychological traits. Specifically, researchers identify the "need for chaos" (a psychological motivation to use extreme methods to disrupt society), trait aggression, and moral disengagement (the psychological process of dehumanizing opponents to remove moral barriers to harm) as the primary drivers of violent intent10.

Thus, perceived political exclusion alone does not cause a citizen to support violence. It requires the addition of specific, extreme psychological dispositions and a complete collapse of democratic norms. The overwhelming majority of politically excluded Americans seek to change the system through aggressive, disruptive, but ultimately non-lethal means42.

Subgroup Differences and Divergent Responses to Similar Exclusion

The reaction to perceived political exclusion is not uniform across demographics; it varies significantly based on socioeconomic status, race, and partisan affiliation. Comparing groups that experience similar levels of perceived exclusion reveals divergent behavioral responses.

Class, Inequality, and Participatory Bias

Income inequality fundamentally alters the landscape of political efficacy. As state-level income inequality increases, external political efficacy declines substantially across the general population16. Economic elites possess the financial resources to influence policy, which validates their external efficacy, while lower-income citizens frequently experience a complete inability to affect legislative outcomes19.

However, experiencing this systemic exclusion does not uniformly radicalize the working class into political action. Because political participation requires resources (time, money, civic skills, cognitive bandwidth), lower-income individuals with low external efficacy often default to the "Alienated" category of the Gamson typology. This results in apathy and nonvoting rather than organized systemic resistance29.

Conversely, highly educated citizens who perceive the system as unresponsive possess the civic skills, networks, and time to organize. This makes them significantly more likely to engage in direct protest, digital activism, and coordinated reform movements48.

Racial Group Efficacy

Standard measures of internal and external efficacy often fail to capture the nuances of racial exclusion in the United States. Recent political science research introduces the concept of "group political efficacy"—the belief that the political system is responsive (or unresponsive) to a specific demographic group, regardless of its responsiveness to the individual50.

For Black, Hispanic, and Asian Americans, racial group efficacy is a more robust predictor of political participation than standard efficacy measures16. When minority groups perceive systemic racial exclusion—even if they possess high internal efficacy—they are often mobilized into unconventional participation and protest (e.g., the Civil Rights Movement, Black Lives Matter). This mobilization acts as a direct response to a lack of institutional responsiveness through normal electoral channels16.

Partisan Asymmetries

Reactions to exclusion also display notable partisan asymmetries. In the contemporary U.S., conservative media consumption and right-wing populism have successfully channeled low external efficacy into anti-establishment voting, hostility toward federal bureaucracy, and deep skepticism of institutional integrity (e.g., election denialism)9.

Left-leaning voters experiencing low external efficacy are statistically more likely to channel their discontent into structural reform advocacy (e.g., abolishing the Electoral College, expanding the Supreme Court) and mass protest mobilization7. Both sides exhibit revolutionary preferences regarding the system's structure, but the targets of their institutional restructuring differ based on partisan narratives.

Historical and Cross-National Comparative Evidence

The American experience of political exclusion and systemic exhaustion can be better understood through cross-national comparisons using data from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) and the European Social Survey (ESS).

Proportional Representation vs. Winner-Take-All

Institutional design heavily dictates the severity of perceived exclusion. In multiparty European democracies utilizing proportional representation (PR) electoral systems, external efficacy is generally higher and more stable across the ideological spectrum51. In PR systems, even small minority factions win seats in parliament proportionate to their vote share, ensuring that their voices are represented in the legislative process. This sustains "losers' consent" because voters rarely feel entirely shut out of power33.

By contrast, the United States utilizes a majoritarian, winner-take-all system (first-past-the-post) combined with single-member districts. In this architecture, a political faction that consistently wins 49% of the vote in a district receives zero representation24. This structural reality mathematically guarantees that large swaths of the electorate experience total and permanent exclusion. This dynamic drives the collapse of external efficacy and fosters anti-system preferences much faster and more intensely than in proportional representation systems.

Consolidated Democracies vs. Authoritarian Legacies

The historical age and legacy of a democracy also conditions the public's response to political exclusion. In new democracies or those with recent authoritarian legacies (e.g., post-Soviet states, parts of Latin America), citizens often lack a deep, intergenerational socialized commitment to democratic norms. In these environments, when external efficacy drops, voters rapidly embrace authoritarian strongmen or military interventions13.

In consolidated democracies like the United States, citizens possess a higher baseline of democratic socialization. Therefore, the thermostatic reaction to systemic failure is often a demand for more democracy rather than less—manifesting as support for direct democratic initiatives, referendums, and the removal of counter-majoritarian institutions8.

However, this democratic firewall is eroding. Recent comparative data shows an increasing willingness among politically exhausted Western electorates to tolerate anti-democratic maneuvers if those maneuvers promise to break institutional gridlock and deliver policy victories26.

Confidence and Uncertainty in the Empirical Evidence

Best Empirical Evidence

The thesis that perceived exclusion drives a preference for fundamental system change is supported by highly robust, longitudinally validated data:

• ANES and GSS Time-Series Data (1952-2024): These surveys utilize gold-standard probability sampling and unambiguously demonstrate a multidecade collapse in external political efficacy and trust in government across all demographic cohorts16.
• Pew Research Center (2021-2024): High-confidence polling consistently confirms that 75% to 85% of the U.S. adult population desires major changes or a complete overhaul of the political system, proving that anti-system preference is now a majoritarian stance, not a fringe sentiment6.
• CSES and ESS Global Data: Cross-national evidence confirms the Gamson Hypothesis, demonstrating that high-interest/low-efficacy voters systematically abandon traditional parties for populism and extra-institutional protest30.

Counterevidence and Uncertainty

The primary counterevidence and areas of uncertainty lie in the limits of radicalization and the methodological challenges of survey research:

• The Overstatement of Political Violence: As demonstrated by the critiques of Kalmoe and Mason's early work, survey data frequently fails to distinguish between expressive partisan cheerleading and genuine violent intent. When corrected for random responding, support for violence is statistically marginal10. Researchers must exercise caution in interpreting inflammatory survey responses as actionable threats to state security.
• The Resilience of Apathy: One must maintain a high level of uncertainty regarding whether exclusion guarantees political action. For vast segments of the population, particularly those lacking socioeconomic resources, the perception that the system is rigged does not produce a revolutionary; it produces a nonvoter29. The causal pathway from exclusion to action is entirely dependent on the presence of high internal efficacy and political interest, which are unevenly distributed across the population.

Final Diagnosis

Perceived political exclusion in the contemporary United States has fundamentally altered the behavioral trajectory of the electorate. The breakdown of external political efficacy—driven by factual institutional barriers like gerrymandering, institutional disproportionality, and the dominance of organized capital—has fractured the thermostatic model of democratic responsiveness.

Citizens have largely concluded that the traditional mechanisms of incremental reform are inadequate because the institutions themselves are the primary barriers to policy enactment. Consequently, there is a measurable, majoritarian preference for revolutionary changes to the political architecture.

However, this anti-system preference is overwhelmingly directed toward structural, constitutional, and electoral overhaul rather than physical violence. The danger to the current American democratic model does not primarily emanate from mass armed insurrection, but from a systemic exhaustion so profound that citizens may willingly dismantle the traditional mechanisms of representative democracy in pursuit of a system that actually responds to their demands.

Works cited

1. Beyond the Thermostat: A Theory of Public Opinion Change, https://pages.charlotte.edu/mary-atkinson/wp-content/uploads/sites/619/2014/02/BeyondThermostat.pdf

2. Penal Populism and the Public Thermostat, https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/97893/6/PenalPopulismThermostat\_Governance\_Preprint.pdf

3. Time Series Analysis and Spurious Regression: An Error Correction, https://peterenns.org/wp-content/uploads/EnnsMasakiKelly\_ECM\_9.25.14.pdf

4. Penal Populism and the Public Thermostat \- Cardiff University, https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/\_\_data/assets/pdf\_file/0003/1130736/Penal-Populism-and-the-Public-Thermostat-Crime-Public-Punitiveness-and-Public-Policy-Will-Jennings.pdf

5. Rigged economies, fractured societies and the case for change, https://earth4all.life/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Rebuild-Trust-Earth-for-All-Survey-2026.pdf

6. A narrative for the new political system we need \- Action Network, https://actionnetwork.org/user\_files/user\_files/000/141/993/original/drc-narrative-toolkit.pdf

7. The Supreme Court's Anti-Voter Decisions as a Threat to Democracy, https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030\&context=fac\_articles

8. Pushing and Pulling: The Static and Dynamic Effects of Political, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12396991/

9. It's About Hate: Approval of Donald Trump, Racism, Xenophobia and, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12333664/

10. Need for Chaos and Dehumanization Are Robustly Associated with, https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/documents/working-papers/2023/wp-23-37.pdf

11. Conceptualizing Democratic Efficacy \- MTA, https://openarchive.tk.mta.hu/419/1/Democratic%20Efficacy\_31-03-2020.pdf

12. Effects on News Use, Discussion, and Political Participation, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318996168\_Internal\_External\_and\_Government\_Political\_Efficacy\_Effects\_on\_News\_Use\_Discussion\_and\_Political\_Participation

13. Political Efficacy Short Scale (PESS) \- GESIS, https://access.gesis.org/zis/1270

14. THE EFFECTS OF PARTICIPATION ON POLITICAL EFFICACY, https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstreams/dfbab77d-7b7a-447a-a08b-3ff72adb959f/download

15. (PDF) Political Efficacy \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380372522\_Political\_Efficacy

16. The (Dis)Connection Between Political Culture and External Efficacy, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258125903\_The\_DisConnection\_Between\_Political\_Culture\_and\_External\_Efficacy

17. the anes guide to public opinion and electoral behavior, https://electionstudies.org/data-tools/anes-guide/anes-guide.html?chart=external\_efficacy\_index

18. Seeking feedback on an idea to reorient the government (U.S.) to, https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1t2mkk7/seeking\_feedback\_on\_an\_idea\_to\_reorient\_the/

19. 3 Strategies to Rebuild and Reimagine Democracy \- Giving Compass, https://givingcompass.org/article/3-strategies-to-rebuild-and-reimagine-democracy

20. Constituent Communication in Representative Democracy, https://escholarship.org/content/qt8m68s9mf/qt8m68s9mf\_noSplash\_ff5f55edd008fcfc2d521b841598c7b1.pdf

21. Search \- Everything Policy, https://www.everythingpolicy.org/search-results

22. false alarm\! the measurement and assessment of political cynicism, https://rex.libraries.wsu.edu/view/pdfCoverPage?instCode=01ALLIANCE\_WSU\&filePid=13349962150001842\&download=true

23. A PLAYBOOK TO REBUILD TRUST IN POLITICS \- Demos, https://demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Trustwatch-2024\_Report\_October.pdf

24. The Limits of Public Support for Fiscal Consolidation, https://openresearch.ceu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/bb2a4042-2ed9-4508-87ff-6285609febc0/content

25. Defining and Measuring Civic Infrastructure \- RAND, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research\_reports/RRA100/RRA112-24/RAND\_RRA112-24.pdf

26. In the Mood for Democracy? Democratic Support as Thermostatic, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326196363\_In\_the\_Mood\_for\_Democracy\_Democratic\_Support\_as\_Thermostatic\_Opinion

27. Frustration and Resentment in Politics: An Application to the Chilean, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379797103\_Frustration\_and\_Resentment\_in\_Politics\_An\_Application\_to\_the\_Chilean\_Case

28. Evidence on Internal Political Efficacy from Large-scale Municipal, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231782763\_Jurisdiction\_Size\_and\_Local\_Democracy\_Evidence\_on\_Internal\_Political\_Efficacy\_from\_Large-scale\_Municipal\_Reform

29. Characteristics and Assureds and Dissidents \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Characteristics-and-Assureds-and-Dissidents\_tbl2\_233137056

30. Inequalities in Non-Institutionalised forms of Political Participation, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216487362\_Inequalities\_in\_Non-Institutionalised\_forms\_of\_Political\_Participation\_A\_Multi-Level\_Analysis\_of\_25\_Countries

31. (PDF) How internal political efficacy translates political knowledge, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303695035\_How\_internal\_political\_efficacy\_translates\_political\_knowledge\_into\_political\_participation\_Evidence\_from\_Germany

32. Democratic maturity, external efficacy, and participation in elections, https://ozp-journal.uibk.ac.at/OEZP/article/download/1583/1268/1574

33. Losers' Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy | Request PDF, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285942608\_Losers'\_Consent\_Elections\_and\_Democratic\_Legitimacy

34. Winning Isn't Everything: Losers' Consent and Democratic Legitimacy, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344613047\_Winning\_Isn't\_Everything\_Losers'\_Consent\_and\_Democratic\_Legitimacy

35. Are People More Satisfied with Democracy When They Feel They, https://www.carolinaplescia.com/files/pdf/publications/2023-01-PSR.pdf

36. how electoral process conditions the relationship between political, https://d-nb.info/1222656000/34

37. Only losers use excuses? Exploring the association between the, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17457289.2023.2281381

38. Causes and Consequences of Confidence in Democratic Elections, https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/download/12489/5086

39. ANES Guide to Public Opinion and Electoral Behavior, https://electionstudies.org/data-tools/anes-guide/

40. Populist Attitudes, Political Trust, and External Political Efficacy, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332599731\_Populist\_Attitudes\_Political\_Trust\_and\_External\_Political\_Efficacy\_Old\_Wine\_in\_New\_Bottles

41. The Rise in Political Violence in the United States and Damage to, https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2022/03/the-rise-in-political-violence-in-the-united-states-and-damage-to-our-democracy

42. Current research overstates American support for political violence, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359332265\_Current\_research\_overstates\_American\_support\_for\_political\_violence

43. Heroes and villains: motivated projection of political identities, https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/500164/1/heroes-and-villains-motivated-projection-of-political-identities.pdf

44. The (alleged) consequences of affective polarization: A survey, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-political-research/article/alleged-consequences-of-affective-polarization-a-survey-experiment-in-nine-democracies/22A263E738B4718273BE92A52D2582ED

45. Partisan polarization, populist attitudes, and anti-democratic behaviors, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2026.1743027/full

46. (PDF) Partisan selective exposure and politically polarized attitudes, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370490347\_Partisan\_selective\_exposure\_and\_politically\_polarized\_attitudes\_toward\_disruptive\_protest

47. An Analytical Perspective on Participatory Inequality and Income, https://www.russellsage.org/sites/default/files/u4/Brady.pdf

48. Participatory Inequality Across Countries: Contacting Public Officials, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10285429/

49. (PDF) The Impact of Political Efficacy on Citizens' E-Participation in, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387745309\_The\_Impact\_of\_Political\_Efficacy\_on\_Citizens'\_e-Participation\_in\_Digital\_Government

50. “People like me”? Introducing Group Political Efficacy \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/404239193\_People\_like\_me\_Introducing\_Group\_Political\_Efficacy

51. Legitimacy from above: the partisan foundations of support for the, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-political-science-review/article/legitimacy-from-above-the-partisan-foundations-of-support-for-the-political-system-in-democracies/215330C63EE390E00E50549FC5C14E78

52. Political Efficacy and Participation in Twenty-Seven Democracies, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29811675\_Political\_Efficacy\_and\_Participation\_in\_Twenty-Seven\_Democracies\_How\_Electoral\_Systems\_Shape\_Political\_Behaviour

53. Electoral fairness through the eyes of the losers A cross-sectional, https://theses.ubn.ru.nl/bitstreams/e04b8d20-cdc9-46e7-b187-c26485cb44e7/download

54. In the Mood for Democracy? Democratic Support as Thermostatic, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335949826\_In\_the\_Mood\_for\_Democracy\_Democratic\_Support\_as\_Thermostatic\_Opinion

55. 0 Winners' Consent? Citizen Commitment to Democracy when, http://amyericasmith.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/CohenEtAl\_AJPS\_ConditionalAcceptance.pdf

56. Public opinion trends in American society: Lessons from social, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12930373/

57. A Comparative Investigation into The Effects of Party-System, https://scispace.com/pdf/a-comparative-investigation-into-the-effects-of-party-system-fkzi0aicy7.pdf