⌕ Search
This search runs locally on the server. It searches published pages and source metadata—not private submissions, raw research records, or consent files.
Results
Comparative account of how losing elections affects legitimacy and how political institutions shape willingness to accept loss. Important counter to treating electoral defeat as permanent exclusion or automatic system rejection.
Finds mixed institutional effects: some consensus/direct-democratic institutions were associated with higher satisfaction and smaller winner-loser gaps, while other consensus dimensions reduced winner satisfaction without improving loser satisfaction. Used against simplistic institutional rankings.
Research participation, consent, oral history, internet research, privacy, and publication boundaries.
Research questions, units of analysis, recruitment status, methods, consent boundaries, limitations, and recurring outputs.
Used to shape future oral-history preparation, interviewing, preservation, and access procedures. It is an input, not a certification.
Used as an input for informed consent, narrator review, preservation, access, and limits on promises. Referencing it does not imply OHA approval of this project.
Claim-level verified dossier separating formal participation, viable choice, external efficacy, agenda influence, responsiveness, loser consent, and reform credibility.
Cross-national evidence that election losers are generally less satisfied than winners and that institutional design can change the size and distribution of that gap. Supports treating losing, fairness, and institutional context separately from regime rejection.
