This thread is for anyone who believes that knowing and doing are logically and existentially inseparable even if one of these modes of engagement with the world is neglected. Posts will describe intent, assumptions, experience, evidence, outcomes and unintended consequences of various factors and initiatives that influence electoral justice.
Last Edit: Aug 16, 2020 23:21:46 GMT by garyriccio
"it is the dynamic interaction of authentic person-to-person contact that is most important in determining whether a method will successfully mobilize voters"
"email and online organizing can be instrumental in organizing other successful mobilization methods even if mass email GOTV messages as a direct mobilizing tools have yet to be proven effective in any experiment."
"voter research has begun to explore the effectiveness of mobilization carried out through interactions between members of voters’ own social networks" [in other words, GOTV contact can have a greater impact to the extent that the persons contacted can mobilize their own social networks, especially those who are neighbors.]
"The content of mobilization messages is not as important as the quality, timing and delivery of messages, which is not to say that message content does not matter at all"
"personally-delivered phone messages by nonpartisan volunteers can be effective in mobilizing voters"
All of the research was conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Trump administration. The methods of interpersonal contact that are most effective and their overall efficacy are likely to be significantly different. Thus, the focus should be on the general principles of personal neighborly interaction and translating those principles into actions that are most feasible during the pandemic.
Last Edit: Aug 16, 2020 23:23:12 GMT by garyriccio
removing barriers to registering and voting alone is not a panacea to the problem of low voter turnout among young people
young voters respond positively to personal contact aimed at encouraging turnout, whether that contact comes in the form of a canvasser, a personal email, or a social media post by a friend
while young people seem to be generally interested in politics, they often do not translate that interest into action
Peer-to-peer contact and creating a culture of civic involvement on campus and among students helped Northwestern University succeed in registering 95% of their students to vote, and improve their student turnout by 15% in 2016 as compared with 2012
there are ethical and resource constraints that academics might face when promoting youth turnout
While these are not peer-reviewed scientific studies, they are a useful orientation to issues on the ground for which Call Hub has developed its value proposition. Just keep in mind of Call Hub's potential conflict of interest, and you'll be well served by the information.
Democrats Abroad drove 3X voter turnout with phone calls
Geek in Disguise: Winning local elections through data sharing
Putting Peer to Peer Texting to the test in the BC Liberal Party Leadership race
Jagmeet Singh for NDP Leader Campaign – Understanding the Ground Game
NEAT and the fight for LGBTQ+ justice
A talk with John Chrastka on EveryLibrary, America’s Library PAC
Case study: How Organizing for change ran a successful GOTV campaign
Current explanations of effective voter mobilization strategies maintain that turnout increases only when a potential voter is persuaded to participate through increased social connectedness. The connectedness explanation does not take into account, however, that registered voters, by registering, have already signaled their interest in voting. The theory presented in this article predicts that impersonal, noticeable messages can succeed in increasing the likelihood that a registered voter will turn out by reminding the recipient that Election Day is approaching. Text messaging is examined as an example of an impersonal, noticeable communication to potential voters. A nationwide field experiment (n = 8,053) in the 2006 election finds that text message reminders produce a statistically significant 3.0 percentage point increase in the likelihood of voting. While increasing social connectedness has been shown to positively affect voter turnout, the results of this study, in combination with empirical evidence from prior studies, suggest that connectedness is not a necessary condition for a successful mobilization campaign. For certain voters, a noticeable reminder is sufficient to drive them to the polls.
This paper compares the spread and impact of new digital modes of voter mobilization with more traditional methods (phone, mail and in person canvassing) in recent national elections in the US and UK. We develop hypotheses regarding the relative effects of online contacting and test them using election study data. Our findings show that while online contact is generally less frequent than the offline form in both countries, this gap is particularly pronounced in the UK. US campaigns also reach a much wider audience than their UK counterparts. In terms of impact, while offline forms remain most effective in mobilizing turnout, online messages are important for campaign participation, particularly among younger citizens when they are mediated through social networks.
Internet advertisements have come under tremendous scrutiny recently for their potential to impact electoral outcomes. However, academic research has yet to determine if they have an effect on turnout. This article presents the results of a preregistered field experiment conducted in Dallas, Texas, in partnership with The Dallas Morning News in which individually targeted banner ads were able to generate a statistically significant increase in turnout among Millennial voters in a municipal election. The results show that a combination of information and voting reminder ads was effective, but only for voters in competitive districts. Estimated treatment effects were on par with a telephone mobilization campaign using live callers. These findings contribute to theoretical knowledge about the role of political knowledge and electoral competitiveness in voter mobilization, and offer a new method for testing online advertisements used by political campaigns.
In 2016, 90% of young Americans reported an interest in politics. 80% intended to vote. Yet only 43% of people between the ages of 18 and 29 ended up actually casting a ballot. Making Young Voters investigates what lies at the core of this gap. The authors' in-depth, interdisciplinary approach reveals that political apathy is not the reason for low levels of youth turnout. Rather, young people too often fail to follow through on their political interests and intentions. Those with 'noncognitive' skills related to self-regulation are more likely to overcome internal and external barriers to participation. This book combines theory from psychology, economics, child development, and more to explore possible solutions rooted in civic education and electoral reform. This potentially paradigm-shifting contribution to the literature of American politics serves to influence not only our understanding of voter turnout, but also the fundamental connections between the education system, electoral institutions, and individual civic behavior in a democracy. How young people vote affects not only each individual future, but that of the United States, and of us all.
This paper is the result of a nationwide study of polling place dynamics in the 2016 presidential election. Research teams, recruited from local colleges and universities and located in twenty-eight election jurisdictions across the United States, observed and timed voters as they entered the queue at their respective polling places and then voted.
Long lines, waiting times, and times to vote are closely related to time of day (mornings are busiest for polling places) and the availability of poll workers
The number of poll workers is a significant corrective for long lines and check-in time. In both instances, the number of poll workers per voters in line had a significant and negative effect on reducing average line length and time it took to check in voters.
Line length has a significant and negative effect on the number of voters who, upon arrival at a polling location, experience a long line and choose to leave rather than wait in line.
there are longer check-in times in majority nonwhite polling places, independent of other unobserved county- and state-level effects
[Days before the general election in 2016] ...We are already reading reports of delays at the polls – even in Phoenix – but long lines are not a wildly unpredictable phenomenon. As the case study of Maricopa County shows, long lines can result from poor planning at the local level. Careful study and preparation by election officials are the first line of defense. Election officials should make sure that resources — such as poll workers and machines — are allocated equitably and competently. Racially diverse urban areas should receive special attention and election officials should make sure that contingency plans are in place when long lines occur.
McElwee (2015, p. 2) reports that, “In 2014, 44 million eligible voters of color did not vote, and 66 million eligible voters earning less than $50,000 did not vote.”
Research has documented voting barriers commonly encountered by people of color, people living near the poverty line, and other vulnerable populations (Barreto, Cohen-Marks, & Woods, 2009; Reilly & Ulbig, 2018; Wang, 2012).
A report by the Election Protection coalition (2018, p. 1) identifies the top barriers documented in the November 2018 election: (1) “long lines and late openings,” (2) “untrained or poorly trained poll workers,” (3) “delays in receiving absentee ballots,” (4) voter registration problems, (5) “faulty or insufficient voting equipment,” (6) “restrictive voter ID laws,” (7) “problems with absentee ballots,” (8) “intimidation and deceptive practices,” and (9) “lack of voter assistance.” Election Protection (2016) reports that the number of complaints has increased over time. ___________
In this study, we collected data through observations conducted at 20 polling places [in St. Louis County, MO] on Election Day, November 6, 2018. Sampling was designed to identify differences in voting access by race and income, if they exist.
The percentage of Black residents in a census tract is positively and statistically significantly associated with the line count
The results for racial makeup suggest a connection to interference with the free passage of voters entering or exiting polling places.
Additionally, researchers at the polling locations in high poverty tracts reported a higher frequency of conditions that prevented voters from completing ballots in privacy: lack of seating for voters completing ballots, lack of privacy screens, and lack of dedicated paper-ballot stations.
there was a more significant police presence at polling locations in high-poverty tracts.
For sites in predominantly-Black and low-income census tracts, researchers reported deficiencies in the number of election judges present and longer lines in the evening. Polling locations in tracts with higher median income and lower percentages of Black residents had longer lines in the morning.
Overall, these findings confirm our hypothesis that where someone lives and votes can influence their ability to cast their vote, particularly in neighborhoods with higher percentages of Black residents and lower household incomes. The results add clear empirical support to an understudied aspect of voter suppression and document how it occurs.
Despite wide scholarly interest in the Voting Rights Act, surprisingly little is known about how its specific provisions affected Black political representation. In this article, we draw on theories of electoral accountability to evaluate the effect of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the preclearance provision, on the representation of Black interests in the 86th to 105th congresses. We find that members of Congress who represented jurisdictions subject to the preclearance requirement were substantially more supportive of civil rights-related legislation than legislators who did not represent covered jurisdictions. Moreover, we report that the effects were stronger when Black voters composed larger portions of the electorate and in more competitive districts. This result is robust to a wide range of model specifications and empirical strategies, and it persists over the entire time period under study. Our findings have especially important implications given the Supreme Court's recent decision in Shelby County v. Holder.
Previous research has shown that geographic proximity to polling places can have major effects on voter turnout (Gimpel and Schuknecht 2003; Haspel and Knotts 2005), and the findings reported here demonstrate that relatively subtle changes like these can significantly affect legislators' representation of constituent interest.
Finally, the results of this study support some tentative conclusions about the potential effects of the Shelby County decision. Mere hours after the decision was issued, Texas enacted its voter identification law that had previously been denied approval by the Department of Justice. Later in summer 2013, North Carolina implemented an even more wide-ranging set of voting restrictions that seems likely to disproportionately reduce turnout among Black voters (Herron and Smith forthcomin.).
Good education requires student experiences that deliver lessons about practice as well as theory and that encourage students to work for the public good—especially in the operation of democratic institutions (Dewey 1923; Dewy 1938). We report on an evaluation of the pedagogical value of a research project involving 23 colleges and universities across the country. Faculty trained and supervised students who observed polling places in the 2016 General Election. Our findings indicate that this was a valuable learning experience in both the short and long terms. Students found their experiences to be valuable and reported learning generally and specifically related to course material. Post election, they also felt more knowledgeable about election science topics, voting behavior, and research methods. Students reported interest in participating in similar research in the future, would recommend other students to do so, and expressed interest in more learning and research about the topics central to their experience. Our results suggest that participants appreciated the importance of elections and their study. Collectively, the participating students are engaged and efficacious—essential qualities of citizens in a democracy