About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


53 Am. J. Pol. Sci. 1 (2009)

handle is hein.journals/amjorpolisci53 and id is 1 raw text is: Who Is Mobilized to Vote? A Re-Analysis of 11 Field Experiments Kevin Arceneaux Temple University David W. Nickerson University of Notre Dame Many political observers view get-out-the-vote (GOTV) mobilization drives as a way to increase turnout among chronic nonvoters. However, such a strategy assumes that GOTV efforts are effective at increasing turnout in this population, and the extant research offers contradictory evidence regarding the empirical validity of this assumption. We propose a model where only those citizens whosepropensity to vote is near the indifference threshold are mobilized to vote and the threshold is determined by the general interest in the election. Our three-parameter model reconcilesprior inconsistent empirical results and argues that low-propensity voters can be effectively mobilized only in high-turnout elections. The model is tested on 11 randomized face-to-face voter mobilization field experiments in which we specifically analyze whether subjects' baseline propensity to vote conditions the effectiveness of door-to-door GOTVcanvassing. The evidence is consistent with the model and suggests that face-to-face mobilization is better at stimulating turnout among low-propensity voters in prominent elections than it is in quiescent ones. olitical scientists have consistently noted and be- moaned the overall decline in voter turnout that began in the late 1960s and early 1970s (Burnham 1982; Rosenstone and Hansen 1993; Teixeira 1992). Even McDonald and Popkin (2001), who dispute evidence of declining turnout in the 1970s, find a down- ward trend in participation during the 1960s, which re- mained lower after 1972 relative to the 1948-70 period. It is intriguing that the secular decline in turnout happened simultaneously with reductions in institutional barriers to vote (e.g., abolition of poll taxes, less restrictive reg- istration laws, motor voter legislation), an increasingly educated electorate, and rising per capita income, each of which is associated with enhancing citizens' propensity to vote (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995; Wolfinger and Rosenstone 1980). Consequently, institutional fea- tures and psychological resources, despite their impor- tance in explaining the individual-level likelihood of voting, do not solely account for changes in aggregate participation. Many scholars attribute the decline in turnout over this period to a shift away from grassroots mobilization by parties and political campaigns (Avery 1989; Rosenstone and Hansen 1993; Teixeira 1987, 1992). To date, an im- pressive amount of field experimental evidence supports the main assumption underlying this thesis. Building upon early get-out-the-vote (GOTV) field experiments (Eldersveld 1956; Gosnell 1927; Miller, Bositis, and Baer 1981), these studies use random assignment to construct comparable treatment and control groups and produce convincing evidence that door-to-door GOTV drives in- crease turnout by 7 to 10 percentage points (Gerber and Green 2000; Green, Gerber, and Nickerson 2003). The ef- fectiveness of door-to-door mobilization lies in its use of social psychology to motivate participation. Canvassers are better able to connect with the individuals they visit on a personal level than phone or mail GOTV strategies (Gerber, Green, and Green 2003; Nickerson 2006, 2007). In fact, face-to-face contact is far more effective than more impersonal approaches at motivating a range of behav- iors, from blood donation to recycling (Jason et al. 1984; Reams and Ray 1993). Consequently, many citizens de- cide to vote because someone, in most cases a complete stranger, simply asks them to do so. Kevin Arceneaux is assistant professor of political science, Temple University, 453 Gladfelter Hall, 1115 West Berks Street, Philadelphia, PA 19122 (kevin.arceneaux@temple.edu). David W. Nickerson is assistant professor of political science, University of Notre Dame, 217 O'Shaughnessy Hall, Notre Dame, IN 46556 (dnickers@nd.edu). The authors would like to thank James Fowler, Justin Fox, Alan Gerber, Don Green, Alexandra Guisinger, Dan Hungerman, seminar participants at the University of Notre Dame, and anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions. We would also like to thank Alan Gerber, Don Green, and Melissa Michelson for kindly sharing their data with us. Of course, any errors are our own. American Journal ofPolitical Science, Vol. 53, No. 1, January 2009, Pp. 1-16 ©2009, Midwest Political Science Association ISSN 0092-5853 1