Democratic elections, by definition, create winners and losers. In doing so, they become a vital part of political parties’ histories, as they have consequences both for parties’ short- and long-term survival, and for party leadership. 

Severe losses may force party leaders to resign from their position and create divisions within parties Shaping the story of the election outcome is therefore of key interest to party leaders and top candidates who want to maintain power. Such stories are also crucial to democracy, as questions about the legitimacy of an election may increase political polarization and lessen trust in democracy.

The JUSDEF project offers novel insights into how party leaders and top candidates running for election shape the story of elections. To this end, the project team collects post-election speeches from elections in 70 countries spanning over a period of 15 years from 2010-2025. The JUSDEF project is divided into three work packages:

Work package 1 focuses on building a typology of the various arguments, justifications and excuses that party leaders and candidates use to explain the outcome of the election. The work package furthermore looks into the prevalence of such arguments.

In work package 2, we explore under what conditions and by whom different types of arguments are used. We study both differences between different types of parties and different types of institutional setups.

Work package 3 focuses on the effects of justifications. We examine how the use of arguments influences public opinion, partisan approval of the party leader, and the likelihood that party leaders will be able to continue as party leaders despite experiencing electoral defeat.