Why do citizens elect political actors who have perpetrated violence against the civilian population? Despite their use of atrocities, political parties with deep roots in the belligerent organizations of the past win postwar democratic elections in countries around the world. This article uses new, cross-national data on postwar elections globally between 1970 and 2010, as well as voting, survey, archival, and interview data from El Salvador. It finds that belligerents’ varied electoral success after wars can be explained not by their wartime levels of violence or use of electoral coercion, but by the distribution of military power at the end of conflict. It argues that militarily stronger belligerents are able to claim credit for peace, which translates into a reputation for competence on the provision of security. This enables them to own the security valence issue, which tends to crosscut cleavages, and to appeal to swing voters. The stronger belligerents’ provision of security serves to offset and justify their use of atrocities, rendering their election rational. This article sheds light on political life after episodes of violence. It also contributes to understanding security voting and offers insights into why people vote in seemingly counterintuitive ways.

中文翻译：

---

投票给胜利者：为什么暴力演员赢得战后选举

为什么公民会选举对平民实施暴力的政治人物？尽管他们使用了暴行，但深深植根于过去好战组织的政党赢得了世界各国的战后民主选举。本文使用了 1970 年至 2010 年间全球战后选举的新跨国数据，以及来自萨尔瓦多的投票、调查、档案和采访数据。它发现，战后交战方在选举中取得不同程度的成功，不能用他们战时的暴力程度或使用选举胁迫来解释，而是用冲突结束时的军事力量分配来解释。它认为，军事上更强大的交战方能够为和平赢得荣誉，这转化为在提供安全方面的能力的声誉。这使他们能够拥有安全效价问题，该问题往往会横切分歧，并吸引摇摆不定的选民。更强大的交战方提供的安全有助于抵消和证明他们使用暴行的理由，从而使他们的选举变得合理。这篇文章揭示了暴力事件发生后的政治生活。它还有助于理解安全投票，并提供有关人们为何以看似违反直觉的方式投票的见解。