# **The Dynamics of Defensive Electoral Behavior: Negative Partisanship, Strategic Coordination, and the "Hostage Voter" Phenomenon**

## **Introduction**

In the contemporary study of democratic institutions and voter behavior, the traditional models of affirmative electoral choice—wherein citizens cast ballots primarily to advance their preferred policy outcomes, ideological preferences, or partisan loyalties—are increasingly challenged by the realities of highly polarized electorates. To understand environments characterized by severe affective polarization and structural constraint, political scientists must investigate alternative frameworks driven by aversion rather than affinity. A phenomenon informally described as the "hostage voter" problem has emerged as a critical subject of inquiry.

The hypothesized mechanism of the hostage voter operates through a sequence of coerced strategic choices: A voter strongly dislikes one major political party. Simultaneously, the voter's genuinely preferred alternative (e.g., a third party, independent candidate, or nuanced policy platform) possesses a structurally negligible probability of winning the election. Consequently, the voter supports the other major party, not out of enthusiastic endorsement, but primarily to prevent the more intensely disliked party from gaining executive or legislative power. Over successive electoral cycles, the urgency of blocking the opposition reinforces this defensive behavior. The voter thus remains electorally attached to a party they may fundamentally dislike, allowing both major parties in a firmly entrenched two-party system to retain vast coalitions of voters without necessarily earning affirmative, mandate-granting support.

The systemic consequence of this mechanism is profound. If major parties can effectively hold their peripheral coalitions "hostage" through the credible threat of the opposing coalition, the foundations of democratic accountability and political legitimacy are inherently altered. This report conducts an exhaustive investigation into the mechanics of this phenomenon within the United States. It synthesizes the peer-reviewed political science literature on negative partisanship, affective polarization, strategic electoral coordination, lesser-of-two-evils voting, and prospect theory to test the existence and magnitude of defensive voting. Furthermore, the analysis models the self-reinforcing feedback loop of strategic voting, evaluates the ability of empirical survey data to isolate these motivations, examines counterarguments regarding spatial voting and ideological sorting, and provides a comparative institutional analysis of plurality systems versus multiparty proportional democracies. Ultimately, the investigation assesses whether negative partisanship provides a plausible theoretical and empirical bridge between the architecture of a two-party system and the subjective electorate experience of feeling politically trapped.

## **The Ascendance of Negative Partisanship and Affective Polarization**

To rigorously test the hostage voter mechanism, it is first necessary to conceptualize the driving forces of contemporary electoral attachment. The foundational theory of partisanship, formulated in the mid-twentieth century by scholars associated with the Michigan model, conceptualized party identification as a psychological attachment, a "positive partisanship" where voters absorbed democratic norms and evaluated political events through the lens of their preferred in-group1. However, a fundamental shift over the past four decades has catalyzed the rise of "negative partisanship"—the tendency of voters to form their political opinions and dictate their electoral behavior primarily in opposition to a political party they intensely dislike4.

### **The Collapse of Out-Group Regard**

Negative partisanship is distinct from mere policy disagreement; it operates as an affective repulsion capable of overriding rational updating and fundamentally shaping social identity1. Affective polarization—the phenomenon whereby partisans feel increasing animosity toward opposing partisans—has collapsed regard for the political out-group while warmth toward the in-group has remained largely stagnant.

Longitudinal data from the American National Election Studies (ANES) illuminates this asymmetry with striking clarity. By measuring sentiment on a 0 to 100 "feeling thermometer" (where 0 is maximally cold and 100 is maximally warm), researchers can track the affective evaluation of both major parties over nearly half a century. Between 1978 and 2024, the average rating Americans gave their own party barely moved, shifting from roughly 71.1 to 70.57. In stark contrast, warmth toward the opposing party collapsed from an average of 48.0 in 1978 to 20.6 in 20247.

Perhaps more illustrative of intense negative partisanship is the migration of voters to the absolute bottom of the scale. In 1978, only 5.4% of partisans gave the opposing party a literal zero on the thermometer; by 2024, that figure had surged to 33.2%, with a peak of 40% during the highly contentious 2020 election cycle7. Similarly, the percentage of partisans willing to express any warmth at all (a rating above 50\) toward the opposing party plummeted from 31.2% in 1978 to a mere 6.5% in 20247. This indicates that a substantial and growing segment of the electorate defines its political orientation through intense, uncompromising hostility toward the opposition.

### **Root Causes of Negative Partisan Identity (NPID)**

Recent scholarship has sought to elevate negative partisanship from a mere attitude to a formal social identity, termed Negative Partisan Identity (NPID). Drawing on social identity theory, researchers argue that identities frequently form in opposition to groups to which individuals do not belong, turning the exclusion from a group into a meaningful social anchor6.

The rise of NPID in the United States is attributed to several converging structural and demographic factors:

> 1. **Racial and Cultural Realignment:** Scholars such as Abramowitz and Webster note that the most significant factor in the rise of negative partisanship is the racial and cultural alignment that began in the 1970s. As the major parties sorted into distinctly polarized camps regarding civil rights, social welfare, and cultural values, demographic changes and ideological polarization transformed elections into zero-sum battles over national identity4.  
> 2. **Media Fragmentation:** The proliferation of partisan media outlets and the internet has created a deeply polarized media landscape. Exposure to ideologically aligned news sources that consistently depict the opposing party in a negative, often existential, light severely limits opportunities for voters to observe positive aspects of the opposition, reinforcing NPID4.  
> 3. **Personality Traits:** Psychological research utilizing the Big Five personality framework reveals that traits such as extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability correlate inversely with negative partisanship. Conversely, voters with lower levels of agreeableness and emotional stability are highly susceptible to forming rigid negative partisan identities4.

When parsing the electorate through this lens, scholars identify four distinct typologies: "Positive Partisans" (high PPID, low NPID), "Negative Partisans" (high NPID, low PPID), "Closed Partisans" (high PPID, high NPID), and "Apathetic Partisans" (low PPID, low NPID)6. The hostage voter mechanism is theoretically grounded in the behavior of the pure Negative Partisan—individuals who possess intense disdain for the opposing party but lack strong affirmative attachments to the party they reliably vote for3.

## **Isolating Motivations: Distinguishing Support from Opposition**

A critical empirical test of the hypothesized hostage mechanism is whether survey instruments can accurately separate affirmative support from defensive opposition. Specifically, can researchers distinguish between the statement, "I strongly support Party A," and the statement, "I vote for Party A primarily because I strongly oppose Party B"? If negative partisanship and affirmative support are entirely indistinguishable in practice, the hostage voter framework loses its empirical distinctiveness. However, advanced survey data and experimental designs demonstrate that these motivations can be isolated and quantified.

### **Self-Reported Voting Rationales and the "Double Hater"**

Public opinion surveys conducted by organizations such as the Pew Research Center have successfully isolated negative voting motivations by utilizing open-ended questions regarding vote choice. During the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, when asked for the major reasons behind their vote, 33% of Donald Trump supporters and 32% of Hillary Clinton supporters framed their vote primarily in opposition to the other candidate11. This "opposition as support" metric clearly delineates affirmative alignment from negative aversion. By the 2024 election cycle, similar dynamics persisted; polling indicated that a substantial portion of the electorate cited stopping the opposing candidate as their primary motivation for voting12.

Furthermore, the phenomenon of the "double hater"—a voter who holds highly unfavorable views of both major party candidates—provides a natural experiment for isolating defensive voting. In the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, data indicated that roughly one-fifth to one-third of the electorate distrusted or intensely disliked both major candidates14. The voting behavior of double haters is fundamentally irreconcilable with affirmative support models. When these voters cast ballots for a major party, they are operating exclusively through the logic of lesser-of-two-evils decision-making, fulfilling the exact parameters of the hostage voter15.

### **Experimental Isolation of Negative Cues**

Further empirical separation is achieved through survey experiments testing positive versus negative voting. Studies examining self-categorized political independents reveal that their preferences are based more on negativity than are the preferences of strong partisans17. Across multiple election cycles, a significantly greater proportion of independents than partisans explicitly report voting "against" a candidate rather than "for" a candidate17.

When researchers expose voters to negatively-framed versus positively-framed political appeals, independent voters and negative partisans show a higher degree of agreement with negatively-framed messaging17. In contrast, strong positive partisans respond more favorably to in-group affirmation9.

| Voting Motivation Indicator | Positive Partisanship (PPID) Profile | Negative Partisanship (NPID) / "Hostage" Profile |
| :---- | :---- | :---- |
| **Primary Driver of Vote Choice** | In-group loyalty and direct policy alignment | Out-group animosity, fear, and threat mitigation |
| **Response to Negative Campaigning** | Reinforces existing in-group superiority | Serves as the primary catalyst for turnout |
| **Perception of the "Lesser Evil"** | Viewed as an acceptable, pragmatic compromise | Viewed as a coerced, highly unsatisfactory necessity |
| **Feeling Thermometer Distribution** | High Own-Party (70+), Low Out-Party (\<30) | Low/Moderate Own-Party (\<50), Zero Out-Party (0) |
| **Self-Reported Rationale** | "I am voting *for* my candidate." | "I am voting *against* the opponent." |

*Table 1: Delineation of affirmative voting profiles versus defensive/negative voting profiles based on ANES, Pew Research, and experimental survey parameters.*

By employing multi-item indices to measure NPID separately from PPID, political scientists confirm that surveys can empirically isolate defensive motivations. Voters can, and frequently do, explicitly articulate that their ballot is a tool of opposition2.

## **Strategic Voting, Electoral Coordination, and the Spoiler Effect**

The translation of subjective negative partisanship into a rigid, two-party behavioral duopoly relies heavily on the institutional mechanics of electoral systems. In the United States, the use of Single-Member District Plurality (SMDP), commonly known as First-Past-The-Post (FPTP), fundamentally structures how voters express their preferences and calculates risk.

### **Duverger’s Law and the Mechanics of Coordination**

Duverger's Law postulates that plurality-rule elections structured within single-member districts tend to produce and sustain a two-party system18. The mechanism behind this law involves both mechanical effects (how votes are translated into seats) and psychological effects (how voters anticipate the mechanical effect). If a voter's genuinely preferred party (e.g., a third party) has little structural chance of winning a plurality, the voter faces a dilemma: cast a "sincere" vote for the third party, or cast a "strategic" vote for the most tolerable major party to block the least tolerable major party19.

Mathematical models of Duverger’s Law, such as those developed by Thomas Palfrey and Gary Cox, demonstrate that strategic voting is a highly rational equilibrium. Even when voters initially desire to vote sincerely, the strategic behavior of policy-motivated candidates and the electorate's collective fear of wasting votes inevitably lead to coordination behind two dominant contenders20. Cox's analysis of electoral coordination highlights that voters engage in "defensive voting" to avoid the worst possible outcome21.

When profound negative partisanship is introduced into this calculus, the psychological penalty of the "greater evil" winning is magnified exponentially. The "spoiler effect"—where a third-party candidate draws votes away from a ideologically proximate major candidate, thus inadvertently handing victory to the ideological opposite—becomes a source of profound electoral anxiety19. Consequently, casting a defensive vote for a disliked major party becomes a highly rational, self-preserving adaptation to plurality rules. The electorate engages in strategic coordination, abandoning minor parties not because they reject the minor party's platform, but because the institutional architecture punishes sincere voting with the worst possible policy outcome19.

### **Prospect Theory and Asymmetric Preference Intensity**

To fully grasp why voters submit to the lesser of two evils so reliably, political scientists increasingly turn to the behavioral economics framework of Prospect Theory. Developed by Kahneman and Tversky, Prospect Theory explains decision-making under conditions of risk, demonstrating that individuals evaluate choices with respect to gains and losses from a reference point, rather than in absolute expected utility25. A core tenet of this theory is "loss aversion"—the psychological principle that losses loom larger than corresponding gains.

In the electoral context, a voter evaluates the potential outcomes of an election against a status quo reference point. If a voter views the opposing major party not just as sub-optimal, but as a catastrophic loss to their social identity, economic security, or fundamental rights, loss aversion dominates their decision-making matrix25. The expected utility of casting a sincere vote for a preferred third party carries a severe, disproportionate risk: facilitating a massive loss by allowing the hated major party to win. Conversely, voting for the unliked, but less hated, major party guarantees the prevention of that catastrophic loss25.

Because voters are deeply loss-averse, they prioritize preventing a negative outcome over achieving an ideal positive outcome25. Under classical expected utility theory, a purely rational agent might risk voting for a third party if the expected payoff of that party's platform is high enough. However, a psychological agent driven by loss aversion exhibits a status quo bias and extreme risk aversion regarding potential losses25. Furthermore, empirical studies applying Prospect Theory to political behavior confirm that political pessimists outnumber optimists, and that negative information is perceived as more salient and credible than positive information3. Therefore, negative partisanship, amplified by intrinsic human loss aversion, ensures that voters remain anchored to the major parties not out of loyalty, but out of a mathematically structured, psychologically potent fear of the alternative.

## **Modeling the Systemic Feedback Loop: The Institutionalization of Coercion**

The interaction between negative partisanship, loss aversion, and plurality voting rules creates a highly stable, albeit deeply cynical, political equilibrium. The theoretical hostage voter mechanism can be modeled as a continuous, self-reinforcing systemic feedback loop that perpetuates the two-party system while simultaneously degrading voter satisfaction.

This feedback loop operates across successive election cycles through the following sequential stages:

> 1. **Fear of the Opposing Coalition (The Catalyst):** Driven by affective polarization, partisan media ecosystems, and deep racial or cultural sorting, a voter develops high Negative Partisan Identity (NPID) against Major Party B. The opposing party is viewed as an existential threat to the voter's way of life4.  
> 2. **Strategic Major-Party Voting (The Action):** Governed by loss aversion and the mathematical constraints of Duverger’s Law, the voter casts a defensive ballot for Major Party A. This is done explicitly to prevent the catastrophic loss of Party B taking power, rather than to endorse Party A19.  
> 3. **Third-Party Weakness (The Immediate Consequence):** Because potential third-party supporters coordinate strategically behind Major Party A to prevent the spoiler effect, third parties are starved of votes, funding, and media attention. They consistently fail to achieve viability, confirming the electorate's prior belief that supporting them is a "wasted vote"19.  
> 4. **Fewer Viable Alternatives (The Structural Reality):** The perpetual failure of minor parties deters future candidate entry and financial investment outside the two-party duopoly. This structural barrier is often reinforced by the major parties themselves through restrictive ballot access laws and bans on fusion voting, which legally eliminate avenues for minor parties to build institutional power30.  
> 5. **Greater Dependence on the Major Party (The Lock-In):** The voter is now entirely dependent on Major Party A as the sole viable vehicle to block Major Party B. Major Party A recognizes this inelastic demand. Because the voter is trapped, Major Party A can reliably harvest the voter's ballot without needing to cater precisely to the voter's affirmative policy preferences or deliver on campaign promises15.  
> 6. **Stronger Perception of Binary Conflict (The Reinforcement):** To maintain this coalition of disparate, unenthusiastic, and hostage voters, Major Party A's optimal campaign strategy shifts away from highlighting its own positive, yet potentially divisive, agenda. Instead, it hyper-amplifies the threat of Major Party B10. This rhetoric deepens affective polarization, validates the initial fear, and feeds directly back into Step 1\.

This feedback loop definitively illustrates how a two-party system can achieve remarkable electoral stability even when substantial swaths of the electorate are dissatisfied with both major parties. In this environment, elections transition from mechanisms of collective preference aggregation into synchronized, biennial exercises in threat mitigation. Both major parties retain their voters because the structural cost of defection is psychologically and practically intolerable19.

## **Counterarguments: Spatial Voting, Social Identity, and Genuine Policy Divergence**

While the hostage voter model paints a picture of systemic entrapment and institutional coercion, alternative interpretations in the political science literature suggest that negative partisanship may reflect rational responses to genuine ideological divergence rather than mere structural coercion.

### **The Ideological Sorting Hypothesis and Spatial Models**

Many scholars argue that the rise of affective polarization and negative partisanship is closely connected to the genuine growth of ideological polarization35. As the Democratic and Republican parties have sorted themselves into highly distinct ideological camps—diverging sharply on social welfare, macroeconomic policy, immigration, and cultural values—the policy distance between the two parties has grown immensely10.

Under spatial models of voting, a voter maximizes their utility by selecting the candidate whose platform is spatially closest to the voter's own ideological ideal point on a multi-dimensional spectrum38. If the opposing party moves to extreme positions on the spatial spectrum, a voter's negative evaluation of that party is not an irrational affectation or a coerced posture; it is a highly accurate, utility-maximizing assessment of the threat that party poses to their material and ideological interests39. In this view, voters are not "hostages"; they are rational actors recognizing that the stakes of the election have risen dramatically. Voting aggressively against a party that promises to enact deeply objectionable policies is a legitimate exercise of democratic choice, and the concept of the "lesser of two evils" merely reflects the reality that broad, diverse coalitions require constant compromise41.

Furthermore, research integrating social identity theory with spatial voting suggests that group attachments (such as racial, ethnic, or class identity) inherently provide material and psychological utility. For example, some scholars argue that specific demographic identities provide utility that strongly aligns with specific partisan platforms, meaning that defensive voting is actually a defense of genuine social utility rather than an illusion created by the electoral system38.

### **The Limits of the Spatial Counterargument**

However, the ideological sorting argument does not negate the coercive nature of the plurality system; rather, it merely explains the intensity of the fear. While voters may genuinely despise the opposing party's platform due to vast spatial distances, the fact remains that they are structurally barred from organizing a *third* alternative that better represents their views without triggering the spoiler effect19. The spatial model assumes voters choose the *closest* candidate, but in a two-party plurality system, the "closest" candidate might still be incredibly distant from the voter's ideal point, representing a vast representational deficit39. Thus, while the fear of the opposing party is undeniably rooted in genuine policy differences, the inability to choose a preferred alternative safely remains a function of institutional coercion. The voter is forced to accept a suboptimal package of policies simply because the alternative package is deemed catastrophic.

## **Comparative Institutional Analysis: Plurality Systems vs. Proportional Democracies**

To fully understand whether voters are uniquely trapped by the American electoral system, a comparative analysis differentiating plurality systems (FPTP/SMDP) from proportional representation (PR) and multiparty democracies is necessary. Does altering the rules of the game relieve the hostage voter dynamic?

### **Affirmative Voting and the Effective Number of Parliamentary Parties (ENPP)**

The most glaring contrast between FPTP and PR systems lies in the translation of votes to seats, which dictates the number of viable parties. Utilizing the "Effective Number of Parliamentary Parties" (ENPP) metric developed by Laakso and Taagepera, comparative research shows that plurality systems generally yield an ENPP of roughly 2.0. In contrast, proportional systems accommodate a vastly broader array of political factions, averaging an ENPP of 3.6 or higher, depending on district magnitude and electoral thresholds43.

Because legislative seats are allocated proportionally to the popular vote share in PR systems, the spoiler effect is effectively neutralized. A voter's preferred niche or third party only needs to clear a minimal national threshold (often between 3% and 5%) to gain legislative representation44. Consequently, voters in multiparty systems have a vastly greater opportunity to vote affirmatively. They can cast a ballot for the party that precisely aligns with their ideological ideal point without the paralyzing fear that they are accidentally facilitating the victory of their most hated opponent. The heavy burden of strategic coordination is shifted away from the *voters* before the election, and onto the *party elites* after the election, where representatives engage in coalition bargaining to form a governing majority44. Empirical studies suggest that satisfaction with democracy is generally higher when proportional rules allow voters to see their specific preferences represented in parliament46.

### **The Costs and Trade-offs of Multiparty Proportional Systems**

However, proportional representation is not a panacea for democratic dissatisfaction, and it carries distinct systemic costs that must be weighed carefully against the benefits of affirmative voting.

> 1. **Clarity of Responsibility:** A major advantage of two-party majoritarian systems is the "clarity of responsibility," a concept heavily theorized by Powell and Whitten. In a strict two-party system, it is entirely clear to the electorate which party is in power and therefore responsible for economic conditions, foreign policy, and public administration. This allows voters to directly and efficiently punish or reward the incumbent49. In a multiparty PR system governed by a sprawling, multi-ideological coalition, assigning blame or credit becomes exceedingly difficult. If the economy falters, voters may struggle to determine which specific coalition partner is at fault, muddying the mechanism of democratic accountability and economic voting51.  
> 2. **Coalition Instability and Policy Gridlock:** Because single parties rarely win outright majorities under PR, coalition governments are the norm. These coalitions can be highly fragile, leading to frequent government collapses, snap elections, and policy stagnation when coalition partners inevitably clash over legislative priorities44.  
> 3. **Extremist Entry and Disproportionate Influence:** The lowered threshold for representation allows fringe, radical, or extremist parties to gain parliamentary footholds. While this increases representational accuracy, these small parties can sometimes leverage their seats to act as "kingmakers." By extracting outsized concessions from moderate parties desperate to form a government, extreme factions can wield influence over state policy that is wildly disproportionate to their actual share of the popular vote44.

While PR systems cure the hostage voter dilemma by removing the spoiler effect and allowing sincere voting, they introduce new vulnerabilities regarding accountability and executive stability. Nevertheless, the empirical reality remains that PR systems consistently accommodate a broader spectrum of affirmative choice compared to the binary, defensive posture structurally mandated by plurality rules.

## **Systemic Consequences: Political Legitimacy and the Erosion of Trust**

If the feedback loop of defensive voting continuously forces citizens to support parties they dislike, the long-term consequences for the political system center on the concept of political legitimacy. Does a system sustained by mutual fear maintain legitimacy, or does it erode over time?

The data overwhelmingly point to severe erosion. Political efficacy—defined as the belief that an individual's actions can influence the political process (internal efficacy) and that the government is responsive to the demands of the public (external efficacy)—is severely degraded when voters feel perpetually constrained by their electoral choices54. The hostage voter dynamic severs the vital democratic link between casting a ballot and signaling a positive policy mandate.

Decades of polling reveal a precipitous decline in Americans' trust in political institutions. Between 1972 and 2021, confidence declined in 14 of 15 measured national institutions, with external political efficacy reaching historic lows during the 2020 and 2024 election cycles57. Satisfaction with democracy naturally wanes when voters are structurally forced into defensive postures. As negative partisans view the opposing party not just as wrong, but as an existential threat to the nation's survival, the incentive for governing parties to engage in bipartisan compromise evaporates. Polarization becomes both the input and the inescapable output of the electoral machine60.

Paradoxically, the collapse of systemic trust does not necessarily depress voter turnout. The 2020 and 2024 U.S. elections featured record-high participation and engagement62. However, this hyper-participation was not driven by soaring civic optimism, high internal efficacy, or deep satisfaction with the candidate offerings; it was driven by catastrophic fear57. High voter turnout in a hyper-polarized environment masks the underlying fragility of the system. It creates a facade of democratic vitality while actually reflecting a desperate, frantic electorate engaging in electoral combat to stave off perceived disaster. Over time, legitimacy built solely on the fear of the alternative is highly brittle. It invites democratic backsliding, as partisans become increasingly willing to tolerate the violation of democratic norms and institutional guardrails by their own side, so long as it prevents the hated out-group from taking power32.

## **Conclusion**

This independent investigation rigorously evaluates the phenomenon of the "hostage voter," wherein a citizen votes for a major party they may actively dislike primarily to prevent a despised opposing party from gaining power.

The empirical evidence, drawn from decades of ANES and Pew Research data, confirms that this mechanism unequivocally exists and operates as a dominant feature of contemporary American political behavior. Negative partisanship—functioning as an entrenched, negational social identity—has largely eclipsed affirmative in-group loyalty as the primary driver of electoral engagement. Survey data explicitly separates these motivations, proving that massive segments of the electorate, particularly independents and "double haters," view their ballots as weapons of opposition rather than tools of endorsement.

The theoretical models of strategic voting, Duverger’s Law, and Prospect Theory fully validate the mechanics of this phenomenon. Because the Single-Member District Plurality system severely penalizes sincere third-party voting via the spoiler effect, and because human decision-making is inherently loss-averse, citizens rationally subordinate their genuine preferences to block the greater evil.

This creates a systemic, self-reinforcing feedback loop. The threat of the out-group coerces strategic voting, which starves alternatives of viability, which in turn deepens voter reliance on the major parties, thereby incentivizing those parties to run campaigns based on fear rather than affirmative policy generation. While this dynamic successfully stabilizes the two-party system by locking in peripheral voters, it comes at a tremendous cost to political legitimacy and external efficacy. When contrasted with proportional representation systems—where voters can vote affirmatively for niche parties but must tolerate post-election coalition instability and murky accountability—the plurality system reveals its unique systemic burden: it outsources the grueling necessity of compromise directly onto the voter before the election ever occurs.

In final analysis, negative partisanship provides a highly plausible, empirically verifiable mechanism connecting the institutional architecture of a two-party plurality system to the subjective feeling of being politically trapped. The hostage voter is not an anomaly of modern elections, but the logical, mathematically predictable outcome of an institutional system where the fear of losing consistently overpowers the hope of winning.

#### **Works cited**

> 1. Enemy Mine: Negative Partisanship and Satisfaction with Democracy, [https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060\&context=polisci\_articles](https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=polisci_articles)  
> 2. The Power of the Dark Side: Negative Partisanship and Political, [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-journal-of-political-science-revue-canadienne-de-science-politique/article/power-of-the-dark-side-negative-partisanship-and-political-behaviour-in-canada/E3E618D3CC7A89BAE1C38B1DFD366D59](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-journal-of-political-science-revue-canadienne-de-science-politique/article/power-of-the-dark-side-negative-partisanship-and-political-behaviour-in-canada/E3E618D3CC7A89BAE1C38B1DFD366D59)  
> 3. Negativity and Political Behavior: A Theoretical Framework for the, [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8998150/](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8998150/)  
> 4. Negative partisanship \- Wikipedia, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative\_partisanship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_partisanship)  
> 5. Negative Partisanship: Why Americans Dislike Parties But Behave, [http://www.stevenwwebster.com/negative-partisanship-rabid.pdf](http://www.stevenwwebster.com/negative-partisanship-rabid.pdf)  
> 6. The Personality Origins of Positive and Negative Partisanship, [https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/viewFile/5719/2963](https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/viewFile/5719/2963)  
> 7. Americans Didn't Fall in Love With Their Party. They Learned to, [https://vishalsingh.org/studios/negative-partisanship-anes](https://vishalsingh.org/studios/negative-partisanship-anes)  
> 8. The Strengthening of Partisan Affect \- Stanford University, [https://pcl.sites.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj22066/files/media/file/iyengar-app-strengthening.pdf](https://pcl.sites.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj22066/files/media/file/iyengar-app-strengthening.pdf)  
> 9. Drivers of partisanship: liking/disliking or policy preferences?, [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10361146.2026.2712914](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10361146.2026.2712914)  
> 10. Why 'negative partisanship' is flipping politics on its head | PBS News, [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/negative-partisanship-flipping-politics-head](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/negative-partisanship-flipping-politics-head)  
> 11. Carroll Doherty, Director of Political Research Jocelyn Kiley, Asso, [https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/09/09-21-16-campaign-release.pdf](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/09/09-21-16-campaign-release.pdf)  
> 12. 2024 Presidential and Congressional Elections: Small Wave, [https://academic.oup.com/psq/article/140/3/439/8157144](https://academic.oup.com/psq/article/140/3/439/8157144)  
> 13. 1\. How Americans feel about the Republican and Democratic parties, [https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/10/30/how-americans-feel-about-the-republican-and-democratic-parties/](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/10/30/how-americans-feel-about-the-republican-and-democratic-parties/)  
> 14. Double-Haters: What 2016 Can Teach Us About 2024 \- LSE Blogs, [https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseupr/2024/04/30/double-haters-what-2016-can-teach-us-about-2024/](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseupr/2024/04/30/double-haters-what-2016-can-teach-us-about-2024/)  
> 15. The effect of a 'None of the above' ballot paper option on voting, [https://sites.duke.edu/attilaambrus/files/2025/03/PUBEC\_105305\_paper.pdf](https://sites.duke.edu/attilaambrus/files/2025/03/PUBEC_105305_paper.pdf)  
> 16. What's your take on the "double haters" voters in the 2024 election?, [https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/1bi8k1m/whats\_your\_take\_on\_the\_double\_haters\_voters\_in/](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/1bi8k1m/whats_your_take_on_the_double_haters_voters_in/)  
> 17. 2024-JESP-Siev-Rovenpor-Petty-independents-negativity.pdf, [https://richardepetty.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2024-JESP-Siev-Rovenpor-Petty-independents-negativity.pdf](https://richardepetty.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2024-JESP-Siev-Rovenpor-Petty-independents-negativity.pdf)  
> 18. Congressional Elections | Varsity Tutors, [https://www.varsitytutors.com/practice/subjects/ap-government-and-politics/lessons/congressional-elections](https://www.varsitytutors.com/practice/subjects/ap-government-and-politics/lessons/congressional-elections)  
> 19. Duverger's law \- Wikipedia, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s\_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law)  
> 20. DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES, [https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:00c4b09d-739b-49c8-b885-f6dfe4bfffd3/files/s12579s68h](https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:00c4b09d-739b-49c8-b885-f6dfe4bfffd3/files/s12579s68h)  
> 21. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral, [https://books.google.com/books/about/Making\_Votes\_Count.html?id=c3bqMzBoinsC](https://books.google.com/books/about/Making_Votes_Count.html?id=c3bqMzBoinsC)  
> 22. Duverger's Law Without Strategic Voting \- University of Rochester, [https://www.rochester.edu/college/faculty/markfey/papers/Exit3.pdf](https://www.rochester.edu/college/faculty/markfey/papers/Exit3.pdf)  
> 23. An Experimental Investigation of Strategic Voting in Primary Elections, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5154212\_Crashing\_the\_Party\_An\_Experimental\_Investigation\_of\_Strategic\_Voting\_in\_Primary\_Elections](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5154212_Crashing_the_Party_An_Experimental_Investigation_of_Strategic_Voting_in_Primary_Elections)  
> 24. Strategic voting when participation is costly, [https://papers.econ.ucy.ac.cy/RePEc/papers/12-18.pdf](https://papers.econ.ucy.ac.cy/RePEc/papers/12-18.pdf)  
> 25. Prospect Theory, Loss Aversion, and Political Behavior, [http://www.francescopassarelli.com/uploads/1/0/9/0/109017319/lossaversion\_passarellidelponte\_2018.4.27-fr.pdf](http://www.francescopassarelli.com/uploads/1/0/9/0/109017319/lossaversion_passarellidelponte_2018.4.27-fr.pdf)  
> 26. (PDF) Prospect Theory, Loss Aversion, and Political Behavior, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339898792\_Prospect\_Theory\_Loss\_Aversion\_and\_Political\_Behavior](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339898792_Prospect_Theory_Loss_Aversion_and_Political_Behavior)  
> 27. PROSPECT THEORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE \- ResearchGate, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228617481\_PROSPECT\_THEORY\_AND\_POLITICAL\_SCIENCE](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228617481_PROSPECT_THEORY_AND_POLITICAL_SCIENCE)  
> 28. Party Over Principles: Determinants of Public Opinion on, [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/state-politics-and-policy-quarterly/article/party-over-principles-determinants-of-public-opinion-on-redistricting-reform/E8E21539B64F49369FA27D3A1E6C4337](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/state-politics-and-policy-quarterly/article/party-over-principles-determinants-of-public-opinion-on-redistricting-reform/E8E21539B64F49369FA27D3A1E6C4337)  
> 29. Algorithmic Insights into Human Irrationality: Machine Learning, [https://www.mdpi.com/2504-4990/8/4/98](https://www.mdpi.com/2504-4990/8/4/98)  
> 30. Circuit-Court-Complaint.pdf \- Center for Ballot Freedom, [https://centerforballotfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/199/Circuit-Court-Complaint.pdf](https://centerforballotfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/199/Circuit-Court-Complaint.pdf)  
> 31. STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT DANE ... \- Law Forward, [https://www.lawforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Dkt.-028-Drutman-Decl-2026.04.10.pdf](https://www.lawforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Dkt.-028-Drutman-Decl-2026.04.10.pdf)  
> 32. An Experimental Literature Review on Democratic Erosion, [https://www.democratic-erosion.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Experimental-Literature-Review-on-Democratic-Erosion.pdf](https://www.democratic-erosion.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Experimental-Literature-Review-on-Democratic-Erosion.pdf)  
> 33. Us versus them: Do the rules of the game encourage negative, [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-political-research/article/us-versus-them-do-the-rules-of-the-game-encourage-negative-partisanship/A73CE131509AB02EC29880CB58C96D0F](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-political-research/article/us-versus-them-do-the-rules-of-the-game-encourage-negative-partisanship/A73CE131509AB02EC29880CB58C96D0F)  
> 34. What Do We Mean by Negative Partisanship? | Request PDF, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356742003\_What\_Do\_We\_Mean\_by\_Negative\_Partisanship](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356742003_What_Do_We_Mean_by_Negative_Partisanship)  
> 35. The Ideological Foundations of Affective Polarization in the U.S., [http://www.stevenwwebster.com/research/webster-abramowitz.pdf](http://www.stevenwwebster.com/research/webster-abramowitz.pdf)  
> 36. Of Love and Hate. Origins and Effects of Positive and Negative Party, [https://polish-sociological-review.eu/pdf-147543-73218?filename=Of%20Love%20and%20Hate.%20Origins.pdf](https://polish-sociological-review.eu/pdf-147543-73218?filename=Of+Love+and+Hate.+Origins.pdf)  
> 37. Majorities of Latinos Disapprove of Trump and His Policies on, [https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2025/11/RE\_2025.11.24\_Latinos-and-Trump-Policies\_REPORT.pdf](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2025/11/RE_2025.11.24_Latinos-and-Trump-Policies_REPORT.pdf)  
> 38. Racial Identity and Voting: Conceptualizing White Identity in Spatial, [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/racial-identity-and-voting-conceptualizing-white-identity-in-spatial-terms/90B1F3562E87825D8067448A5A4432E0](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/racial-identity-and-voting-conceptualizing-white-identity-in-spatial-terms/90B1F3562E87825D8067448A5A4432E0)  
> 39. The (Spatial) Land Before Time \- MADOC, [https://madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/67742/1/Thesis%20S.%20Eschenwecker.pdf](https://madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/67742/1/Thesis%20S.%20Eschenwecker.pdf)  
> 40. (PDF) Go the distance: left-right orientations, partisanship and the vote, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343358561\_Go\_the\_distance\_left-right\_orientations\_partisanship\_and\_the\_vote](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343358561_Go_the_distance_left-right_orientations_partisanship_and_the_vote)  
> 41. Primaries and Candidate Polarization: Behavioral Theory and, [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/primaries-and-candidate-polarization-behavioral-theory-and-experimental-evidence/1C1D65F65256F07A47B01BF990822A2B](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/primaries-and-candidate-polarization-behavioral-theory-and-experimental-evidence/1C1D65F65256F07A47B01BF990822A2B)  
> 42. Where Did All the Democrats Go? An Analysis of Defection and, [https://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060\&context=gradstudies\_etd\_2026](https://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=gradstudies_etd_2026)  
> 43. Building political parties: \- The ACE Electoral Knowledge Network, [https://aceproject.org/ero-en/topics/parties-and-candidates/pippa.pdf](https://aceproject.org/ero-en/topics/parties-and-candidates/pippa.pdf)  
> 44. Electoral Institutions, [https://ijrtssh.com/wp-content/uploads/ijrtssh.vol\_.3.issue6\_170.pdf](https://ijrtssh.com/wp-content/uploads/ijrtssh.vol_.3.issue6_170.pdf)  
> 45. What Kind of Electoral Outcome do People Think is Good for ... \- Helda, [https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstreams/d90aa064-2dad-491d-a077-0b6d430ae7d9/download](https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstreams/d90aa064-2dad-491d-a077-0b6d430ae7d9/download)  
> 46. A Look at the Evidence for Proportional Representation, [https://www.fairvote.ca/24/10/2018/evidence/](https://www.fairvote.ca/24/10/2018/evidence/)  
> 47. A Look at the Evidence \- 2026-01-24 \- Google Docs, [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ARfhGvCCMzxY4vFrEIEg-yhK2HDPDr6jMnAJqbnfS-E/edit?usp=sharing](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ARfhGvCCMzxY4vFrEIEg-yhK2HDPDr6jMnAJqbnfS-E/edit?usp=sharing)  
> 48. Satisfaction with democracy in Latin America \- SciELO Colombia, [http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/dys/n83/0120-3584-dys-83-00353.pdf](http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/dys/n83/0120-3584-dys-83-00353.pdf)  
> 49. Assessing Electoral Accountability in the CEE Member States, [https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/112579/ssoar-pceur-2016-2-fumarola-Much\_More\_Than\_Economy\_Assessing.pdf?sequence=1\&isAllowed=y](https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/112579/ssoar-pceur-2016-2-fumarola-Much_More_Than_Economy_Assessing.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)  
> 50. Inequality and Electoral Accountability: Class-Biased Economic, [https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/686157](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/686157)  
> 51. Is 'Clarity of Responsibility' Important for Economic Voting, [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/is-clarity-of-responsibility-important-for-economic-voting-revisiting-powell-and-whittens-hypothesis/D1D1412E608981012BBB05B0CDB00452](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/is-clarity-of-responsibility-important-for-economic-voting-revisiting-powell-and-whittens-hypothesis/D1D1412E608981012BBB05B0CDB00452)  
> 52. Clarity of responsibility: How government cohesion conditions, [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-political-research/article/clarity-of-responsibility-how-government-cohesion-conditions-performance-voting/0F09522AD7B39EC5366A0ACBC64712B5](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-political-research/article/clarity-of-responsibility-how-government-cohesion-conditions-performance-voting/0F09522AD7B39EC5366A0ACBC64712B5)  
> 53. A comparative analysis of the impact of different voting systems on, [https://makevotesmatter.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Stability-Report-PUBLISH.pdf](https://makevotesmatter.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Stability-Report-PUBLISH.pdf)  
> 54. (PDF) Political Efficacy, Voting Behavior and Partisanship among, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291833997\_Political\_Efficacy\_Voting\_Behavior\_and\_Partisanship\_among\_University\_Students\_international](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291833997_Political_Efficacy_Voting_Behavior_and_Partisanship_among_University_Students_international)  
> 55. How External Efficacy Influences Support for Third-Party and, [https://scholar.umw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1699\&context=student\_research](https://scholar.umw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1699&context=student_research)  
> 56. Efficacy and Political Participation: How Can I Make A Difference?, [https://huskiecommons.lib.niu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8428\&context=allgraduate-thesesdissertations](https://huskiecommons.lib.niu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8428&context=allgraduate-thesesdissertations)  
> 57. A Nation Veering off Course: Implications for Efficacy and Well-Being, [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13023781/](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13023781/)  
> 58. Fifty Years of Declining Confidence & Increasing Polarization in, [https://direct.mit.edu/daed/article/151/4/43/113715/Fifty-Years-of-Declining-Confidence-amp-Increasing](https://direct.mit.edu/daed/article/151/4/43/113715/Fifty-Years-of-Declining-Confidence-amp-Increasing)  
> 59. Americans' Deepening Mistrust of Institutions, [https://www.pew.org/en/trend/archive/fall-2024/americans-deepening-mistrust-of-institutions](https://www.pew.org/en/trend/archive/fall-2024/americans-deepening-mistrust-of-institutions)  
> 60. Democratic norm erosion and partisanship in the United States, [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13510347.2025.2470764](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13510347.2025.2470764)  
> 61. Restoring institutional confidence in backsliding democracies \- PMC, [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12704730/](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12704730/)  
> 62. United States of America – General Elections, 5 November 2024, [https://www.oscepa.org/en/documents/election-observation/election-observation-statements/united-states-of-america/statements-27/5110-2024-general/file?ref=ivn.us](https://www.oscepa.org/en/documents/election-observation/election-observation-statements/united-states-of-america/statements-27/5110-2024-general/file?ref=ivn.us)  
> 63. Political Polarization and Voter Turnout: A New Political Paradigm?, [https://digitalshowcase.lynchburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1337\&context=utcp](https://digitalshowcase.lynchburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1337&context=utcp)