Democracy or discord? How citizens judge contested party leadership races

Abstract

In this article we challenge the belief that citizens are ultimately responsible for the dilemma political parties may face between selecting their leaders democratically and attracting votes. This belief arises from the notion that citizens reject parties whose leaders are chosen through competitive processes, associating competition with division and division with incapacity. We suggest, however, that citizens perceive contested leadership races as either divisive and thus negative, or alternatively, democratic and thus positive, depending on the inclusiveness of the selectorate. Using a conjoint experimental design, we partially confirm our expectations. Our key finding is that competitive races, although perceived as divisive, are never electorally detrimental. When conducted through primaries, they may even yield positive electoral effects. This outcome remains robust even after accounting for the ideological positions of both parties and citizens. We conclude that if a dilemma exists between intra-party democracy and electoral success, citizens are not to blame.