Compromise is for Losers? Loss Aversion and Support for Legislative Compromise

• In Event: Perceptions on Representatives and Legislative Compromise

Abstract

As partisan polarization has deepened, bargaining and negotiation have given way to recurrent gridlock. Therefore, it is important to determine what, exactly, impedes or encourages political compromise. At present, there is relatively little empirical research on this subject. In four studies, we test the hypothesis that compromise is for (partisan) losers, because – strategically speaking – those in the partisan majority have little incentive to compromise, knowing they need no bipartisan cooperation to achieve their policy goals. We measure the degree to which respondents’ partisan identity matches that of her district, using that variance to explain differences in support for compromise across four issues We use examine the change in support for compromise among Democrats and Republicans between the ANES pre-election wave (when Democrats controlled the executive branch and virtually everyone expected them to continue holding it after the election) and the post-election wave (after Trump unexpectedly won) We analyze the relationship between perceiving that one’s party/ideology/culture is losing in American politics and support for compromise. We manipulate the extent to which respondents perceive their “side” as winning or losing the culture war, using that treatment variable to predict differences in support for compromise. We find that partisan majority status is associated with political obstinacy, but primarily among Republicans.

Authors

• David C. Barker, American University

• Shaun Bowler, University of California, Riverside

• Christopher J. Carman, University of Glasgow

• Morten Wendelbo, American University