Voting Against, Not For: The Rise and Impact of Negative Voting
By Samantha Buonato
In the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election, nearly a third of voters admitted they were casting a vote not to show support for their chosen candidate, but against their opponent. This phenomenon of negative voting is becoming more prominent in democracies worldwide. Rather than voting out of enthusiasm, many citizens vote out of fear of the opposition. While negative voting is not new, its growing prevalence —fueled by political polarization and disillusionment —raises important concerns about democratic legitimacy and civic engagement.
Unlike protest voting or abstention, negative voting is defensive. The practice is rooted in psychological biases like loss aversion, where people fear losses more than they value equivalent gains. In politics, this translates to voters being more motivated to avoid undesirable outcomes than to pursue positive ones. Political psychologist Steven Webster defines this “negative partisanship” as individuals being more motivated by hatred for the opposing party than loyalty to their own. Unlike protest voters, negative voters still participate in elections, but their decision is driven by aversion, not alignment.
One major driver of negative voting is political polarization. With fewer moderate candidates and increasing hostility between parties, many voters feel trapped in their options or feel as though they are picking “the lesser of two evils.” This sentiment is amplified by the media and social media, which reward outrage, fear, and sensationalism, creating echo chambers that bolster individuals’ views. The erosion of public trust in institutions and candidates further intensifies this trend. According to a 2024 Pew Center Survey, only 22 percent of American voters feel “they trust the federal government to do the right thing just about always or most of the time.” As a result, many voters feel they must adopt a strategic mindset, choosing not their ideal candidate, but the one most likely to block a worse outcome. This fear in voters is reinforced by attack-based campaigning, where political messaging focuses more on demonizing the opponent than offering constructive policies.
While negative voting feels like a contemporary concept, it has historical roots. When the U.S. developed a strong two-party system in the 1830s and 1840s, the concept of negative voting in the context of the two parties being in conflict with one another also developed. For instance, negative voting appeared in 1896 when William McKinley was thought to have won the election because of the extent to which William Jennings Bryan had been made out to be so radical that voters feared he threatened American democracy.
This rise in negative voting, however, carries serious implications. First, it undermines democratic legitimacy. When candidates win without broad-based support, their mandates become questionable. For instance, researchers studying Chile’s 2022 elections found that high levels of affective polarization in the country significantly reduced people’s support for democracy. Unlike political polarization rooted in ideological differences, contempt and distrust towards opposing parties drive affective polarization. Second, negative voting fosters civic cynicism, with voters viewing participation as damage control rather than democratic expression, as seen in the 2024 Presidential Election, when more than two-thirds of Americans expressed exhaustion with their repeated choice of candidates. Ironically, negative voting can also both increase voter turnout in the short-term and suppress long-term engagement. As voters grow tired of fear-driven politics, especially young or first-time voters, apathy and burnout become risks. It also bolsters polarization, as negative campaigns breed resentment and divisiveness.
Repeated exposure to elections defined by fear rather than hope can lead to deep political disillusionment. Many citizens begin to question the value of participation altogether, seeing the two-party system as a choice between bad and worse. One proposed solution to address negative voting is ranked choice voting. Advocates for ranked choice voting argue that the method cultivates less ideologically extreme politicians, as candidates would be incentivised to try to find middle ground with their electorate. Additionally, public campaign financing may reduce the dominance of attack ads that fuel polarization.
In sum, negative voting is a growing feature of the political landscape, driven by polarization, distrust, and limited political choices. While it reflects concerns and frustrations, its long-term effects, such as declining trust, voter fatigue, and weakened legitimacy, pose serious risks. Without meaningful reform and a shift in political culture, defensive voting may become the norm rather than the exception.
http://www.stevenwwebster.com/negative-partisanship-rabid.pdf
https://www.pew.org/en/trend/archive/fall-2024/americans-deepening-mistrust-of-institutions
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/lesser-of-two-evils-history-voting/#
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/lesser-of-two-evils-history-voting/#
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424000039
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/13/1214199019/ranked-choice-voting-explainer