Winning an election does not mean winning over the voters

The 2026 midterm elections will be analyzed in terms of winners, losers, and competing policy agendas. Yet an election result does not answer a more fundamental question: Did voters embrace the winning party, or did they simply reject the alternative? And what about the eligible voters who chose neither?This distinction is central to a phenomenon political scientists call negative partisanship: political behavior driven more by opposition to the other party than by enthusiasm for one’s own. A vote can be an endorsement, but it can also be an act of rejection. Treating the two as interchangeable risks misunderstanding the electorate.Political scientists Alan Abramowitz and Steven Webster have documented how hostility toward the opposing party can reinforce partisan voting. That finding is consistent with several familiar psychological processes. People are often especially attentive to perceived threats and losses. Political identity can become entwined with personal identity, making an opponent’s success feel like a threat to one’s values or community. Motivated reasoning can then lead people to excuse shortcomings in their preferred party while condemning comparable behavior in its rival. None of this means that voting against a candidate is irrational. Elections are a legitimate means of holding leaders accountable. A voter may have compelling reasons to reject a governing party’s record. But rejection of one party does not automatically amount to approval of every proposal advanced by the other.An equally important, and frequently neglected, part of the electorate consists of those who do not vote. Their absence should not be interpreted as a single message. Many are disengaged or uninterested. Still others deliberately abstain because neither party reflects their priorities.Psychologically, apathy and alienation are different. Apathy suggests little motivation to participate. Alienation can reflect the belief that political institutions are unresponsive, that neither choice is acceptable, or that participation will accomplish little. For some citizens, staying home is not indifference but a refusal to endorse either option. We should not presume that motive without evidence, but neither should we assume that every nonvoter has nothing to say.This creates a problem for the way political victories are interpreted. The winner has earned the legal authority to govern under the rules of the election. That is not the same as proving that a majority of all eligible citizens support the winner’s full ideological program. Some supporters voted primarily against the opposition; some held mixed or unfavorable views of the party they selected; and some eligible citizens did not participate at all.Political leaders nevertheless have an incentive to declare a mandate. Such claims can turn a narrow or conditional coalition into a supposed endorsement of sweeping policy changes. The resulting overconfidence may help explain why parties sometimes misread the public mood soon after celebrating victory.The appropriate response is not to dismiss elections or diminish the votes of those who participate. Election outcomes matter, and elected officials must govern. The point is that responsible leadership requires a more careful interpretation of what an election communicates. It means listening to reluctant supporters, understanding the concerns that motivated opposition, and investigating why so many citizens may feel unrepresented.THE AMERICAN DREAM ISN’T DEAD. WE JUST CONFUSED OPPORTUNITY WITH A GUARANTEEAs a clinical psychologist, I have learned that behavior must be interpreted in context. Two people can make the same choice for very different reasons. The same is true of voting and of not voting.An election tells us who won the authority to govern. It does not, by itself, tell us whether voters were inspired, dissatisfied, fearful of the alternative, or simply unwilling to participate. Confusing victory with universal endorsement is a mistake either party can make—and one both would be wise to avoid.Tim Barclay, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist and professor of clinical psychology whose writing focuses on psychology, culture, personal responsibility, and public policy. His background also includes service in the U.S. Army and a 20-year career in law enforcement.