Electoral Consequences of Scandals

Vote/Turnout

The impact of the scandal on the election results is quite negative. There are many different examples of this. For example, when a scandal broke out in the United Kingdom about the use of parliamentary expenditures by MPs for personal wishes and their own interests, a decrease of approximately 1.5% in the votes of the MPs mentioned in the scandal was observed (Fisher). In other words, the public wants to hold politicians responsible for their actions and shows their disapproval of unethical and inappropriate behavior in elections. Eggers and Fisher's study shows once again how important the influence of the media is on this issue. It has been stated that candidates who are affected by scandals that attract more media attention and are covered more in their news have a higher rate and probability of losing votes in the elections (Fisher).

Political scandals affect not only the elections in the near future, but also the public's reluctance or indifference to participate in the elections, which is caused by the damage to the feelings of trust and impartiality in society in the long term. For example, in Spain, it has been observed that the rate of reversing the decision to vote in the next election is higher in regions where corruption scandals are revealed more frequently (Eva Anduiza). This situation actually shows that the scandals caused disappointment in the public and damaged the sense of hope. The frequency of scandals is another factor that harms democracy in the long term.

Scandals do not have to be large to have such a negative impact. Scandals that may be considered smaller, depending on where the allegation originated and the person concerned's position in politics, also have negative consequences on elections and voter behavior. For example, when local scandals in municipal elections in Germany are examined, the emergence of scandals that could undermine trust in local government has led to a huge decrease in voter participation (Peter Boenisch).

Re-election Likelihood

Another effect of scandals is that they play a role in determining whether candidates can run again after the election. Looking at the post-Watergate period, politicians involved in the scandal were less likely to be re-elected because there was a decrease of approximately 6.5% in the votes of incumbent executives at that time (Basinger). The impact of scandal types on this decline generally follows a different course. As mentioned before, in this case, scandals related to ethical violations were found to cause a greater decrease than financial and other types of scandals, with a rate of 8% (Basinger). A similar example can be seen in the impact of scandals in the senate elections in the period from 1972 to 2016. In this process, it was observed that 40% of the candidates mentioned especially in financial scandals did not receive votes for re-election (Long).

Offering a different approach on this issue, Rottinghaus states that although the scandals during the Watergate period had a great impact on the number of resignations of politicians and election results, the scandals reduced their negative impact on candidates' re-election due to the increasing polarization in politics after 1990 (Rottinghaus, Do Scandals Matter?). In other words, the sharp polarizations and scandals that emerge in periods when partisanship increases and the independence of the media decreases weaken the candidates' anxiety about being re-elected. This, of course, will cause the events to be forgotten more quickly in the long run, more scandalous events to occur, and the responsible people not to be punished.

Voluntary Retirement

Another effect of political scandals is that they cause politicians to voluntarily leave office. In the 102nd Congress of the US House of Representatives, 20% of the officials mentioned in the scandal chose to retire rather than be re-elected (Timothy Groseclose). Some politicians use this strategic method to protect their reputations and avoid being worse off in front of the public. An important factor that affects here is the size of the scandal. Voluntary retirement following involvement in scandals in companies with higher reputations and financial strength is 25% higher than in less financially powerful and less popular companies (Timothy Groseclose). When approximately 55,000 cases were examined, not only in America, it was seen that political scandals caused a 30% increase in the decision to retire voluntarily (Rodrigo Praino). The decision to retire voluntarily is not just a strategic decision. Also, candidates involved in the scandal decided to retire in order to avoid further damage to their careers and the psychological difficulties caused by the intense stress experienced by the candidates.

References

Basinger, Scott J. “Scandals and Congressional Elections in the Post-Watergate Era.” Political Research Quarterly 66 (2013): 385-398.

Eva Anduiza, Aina Gallego, and Jordi Muñoz. “Turning a Blind Eye: Experimental Evidence of Partisan Bias in Attitudes Toward Corruption.” Sage Journals 46.12 (2013): 1664-1692.

Fisher, Andrew Eggers and Alexander. “Electoral Accountability and the UK Parliamentary Expenses Scandal: Did Voters Punish Corrupt MPs?” LSE Department of Government; Political Science and Political Economy Working Paper (2011).

Long, Nicholas Chad. “The Impact of Incumbent Scandals on Senate Elections, 1972–2016.” Social Science (2019).,

Peter Boenisch, Benny Geys and Claus Michelsen. “David and Goliath in the Poll Booth: Group Size, Voting Power and Voter Turnout.” SSRN Electronic Journal (2015).

Rodrigo Praino, Daniel Stockemer. “The Electoral Consequences of Scandals: A Meta-Analysis.” Parliamentary Affairs 75.3 (2022): 469-491.

Rottinghaus, Brandon. “Do Scandals Matter?” Political Research Quarterly 76 (2023): 1932-1943.

Timothy Groseclose, Keith Krehbiel. “Golden Parachutes, Rubber Checks, and Strategic Retirements from the 102d House.” JSTOR (1994): 75-99.