Who Is Mobilized to Vote? A Re‐Analysis of 11 Field Experiments

Abstract

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 whose propensity 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 reconciles prior 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 GOTV canvassing. 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.

The Politics of the Restoration of Ex-Felon Voting Rights: The Case of Iowa

“…Executive Order 70 also may have made groups more hesitant to target get-out-the-vote (GOTV) efforts at ex-felon communities, as doing so risked encouraging a felony. Because GOTV activity is particularly effective at mobilizing low propensity voters in presidential elections (Arceneaux and Nickerson, 2009), turnout is likely to drop in response to Executive Order 70.…”

When Context Matters: Assessing Geographical Heterogeneity of Get-Out-The-Vote Treatment Effects Using a Population Based Field Experiment

“…By extension GOTV campaigns may be likely to mobilise those living in areas of mid-level turnout, though this may vary according to the saliency of the election (for example, contrasting a European and General Election as we are able to do here). In other words, we extend the logic of curvilinear contingent theory of turnout of Arceneaux and Nickerson (2009) to apply to geographical electoral districts, and more specifically the relationship between mobilization efficacy, the underlying or prevailing level of turnout and election salience.…”

“…Conversely, those with a low underlying propensity to vote may be difficult to persuade to change their mind (Niven 2001). Integrating these ideas, Arceneaux and Nickerson (2009) predict a curvilinear relationship between the individual level underlying propensity to vote (or level of interest) and the efficacy of intervention with the point of optimum efficacy depending on the salience of the election (Arceneaux and Nickerson 2009). Thus, in low saliency elections it is relatively high propensity voters who are more likely to be on the cusp of their personal voting (or indifference) threshold.…”

“…An increasingly important line of enquiry is the heterogeneity of treatment effects. A number of studies have explored the conditions under which treatment effects vary from population to population, from study to study and by treatment design (Imai and Strauss 2011;Arceneaux and Nickerson 2009;.…”

Messages, Micro-targeting, and New Media Technologies

“…Since turnout efforts have their greatest effect with low propensity voters in high-intensity elections and high propensity voters in low intensity ones (Arceneaux and Nickerson 2009), we can also predict the groups most susceptible to mobilization efforts in this new venue. Just as targeted messages can inform a voter about civic matters, they also can be used to misdirect and deceive.…”