Do get-out-the-vote (GOTV) drives mobilize voters in all elections or just in high stakes elections?
 
Background
 
Many campaigns use GOTV drives with face-to-face campaigning to increase turnout among people who consistently do not vote.  To test whether or not face-to-face campaigning mobilizes nonvoters researchers only looked at citizens who typically do not vote when analyzing 11 field experiments.
 
Results

• Face-to-face campaigning is better at getting people who usually vote to vote compared to nonvoters in small elections.
• Face-to-face campaigning is better at getting nonvoters to vote in prominent elections rather than small elections.
• Campaigns should pay attention to who they want to get to the polls and the type of elections they are campaigning for.

 
Link to Study

Do members of the same household share similar voting behaviors because of their influence on each other?
 
Background
 
There have been studies showing that members of the same household share similar voting behaviors on average.  Researchers performed a face-to-face canvassing experiment in various cities.  They visited households with two registered voters.  Residents who answered the door received either a Get Out the Vote message or a recycled pitch.  Then they looked at whether or not the person in each household who did not answer the door went to vote.
 
Results
 

• 60% of the households passed on a propensity to vote to other members of the household.
• It is likely that civic participation norms are adopted within households.
• It is likely that couples grow more similar over time in their voting behavior.

 
Link to Study

Do voter registration drives get more people to vote and if they do, what type of person do they encourage to vote?
 
Background
 
It is difficult to measure how much voter registration drives actually increase voter turnout.  The field experiment focused on city streets in six cities.  Streets in the cities were randomly assigned to receive visits from canvassers trying to register voters.  Researchers categorized the streets based on prior voter turnout.
 
Results

• Door-to-door canvassing caused around 11 new registrations on each street.
• Registration does pose a barrier to voting.
• The experiments were conducted across many different cities and elections so the results can be applied to a range of settings.
• Canvassing is estimated to increase voting in rich and poor neighborhoods equally.

 
Link to Study
 

Can contact with a campaign increase voter turnout?
 
Background
 
There are a lot of studies on campaigns but there haven’t been many conclusions on how effective campaign efforts are in politics.  In 2006, in California’s 44th District, there was a local State Assembly seat open.  Democratic activists wanted to get voters to the polls.  They used a variety of methods to contact citizens: phone, email, door hanger, face-to-face contact, and other forms of contact.  Using this natural experiment political scientists determined the effect of campaign contact on voter turnout.
 
Results
 

• This campaign increased voter turnout by around 850 votes.
• It was effective in increasing turnout among newly registered voters.
• It was also effective in increasing turnout with voters with a variety of voting histories.
• Campaign managers can make reasonable choices to increase voter turnout.

 
Link to Study
​

Can state officials increase local officials’ compliance with federal laws using subtle messages or hints?
 
Background
​
There are federal laws requiring voter registration to be available at certain government agencies, but many counties do not follow these laws.  The experiment involved two states.  In one state the timing of the training of local government employees was randomly changed.  In the other state the content of e-mails sent by the election office to certain agencies was randomly changed.
 
Results 

• Both experiments increased voter registration attempts.
• This happened in agencies and offices that were already trying to register people
• These subtle messages, through email and training, can cause improvement for some agencies but probably not for the offices that need it the most.

 
Link to Study

​Can community organizations increase attendance at housing fairs by giving residents personal invitations?
 
Background
 
The city of Milwaukee has increased community outreach efforts to get residents to attend and participate in housing programs to improve the neighborhood.  Four field experiments were conducted in Milwaukee to test the success of these outreach efforts.

• Study 1: People were either given a postcard asking “need help with your home?” or “want to help your community?”
• Study 2: People either received a visit from an organizer or they were not contacted.
• Study 3: People either received a standard letter, a letter emphasizing connections to the community, or no letter.
• Study 4: A repeat of Study 3 with different homeowners.

 
 
Results
 

• Postcards mentioning the community led to a higher meeting attendance compared to postcards that did not. (Study 1)
• People who received a letter were more likely to attend the housing fair compared to those who did not receive a letter. (Study 3 and Study 4)
• The letters emphasizing community were best able to get people to attend the housing fair. (Study 4)
• Personal invitations can increase attendance at housing fairs and pointing out an attachment to the community helps even more.

 
MDL Policy Brief. 2014. “Community Outreach around Housing” Milwaukee, WI: The Marquette Democracy Lab Project
 
 

Does the method of voting and/or surrounding factors of the election contribute to whether or not door-to-door mobilization increases voter participation?
 
Background
 
In San Diego County certain voters are required to vote by mail while others live in traditional precincts and can vote by going to a polling place.  In a field experiment to measure the effects of door-to-door canvassing get out the vote (GOTV) canvassers were randomly assigned to fifty traditional precincts and fifty vote-by-mail precincts.  This was leading up to the November 2008 general election.  Voting’s social rewards, such as campaign activity, the people running in the election, and the significance of the election, were also considered.
 
Results

• A door-to-door campaign increases participation more in traditional precincts compared to vote-by-mail precincts.
• This larger effect is ONLY among voters who are most likely to be affected by social rewards.
• Election reform strategies that take advantage of voting’s social rewards may increase participation.

 
Link to Study

Does expressing a position help state legislators build support even if their positions are controversial or opposite to the public?
 
Background
 
8 Democratic state legislators from a Midwestern state agreed to participate in the experiment.  Constituents took surveys before getting letters from the legislators.  In the first round one legislator sent some constituents letters taking an opposite stance on an issue while other constituents did not receive a letter.  In the second round seven legislators did the same thing except some of the letters had an extensive explanation while others had a brief explanation.  Recipients were also surveyed after they received the letters.
 
Results

• First Round: There was no backlash against the legislator for taking an opposite stance.
• Second Round: There was no backlash against a legislator for taking an opposite stance.  Sometimes constituents supported a legislator more after receiving a letter.  The length of the explanation had a very small effect.
• Overall Lesson: At the state level legislators who do not communicate their positions on controversial issues could be better off making their positions known to the public.

 
Link to Study

The New York Times Article on Study
 
Governing.com Article on Study

Can municipal governments increase response rates to surveys by telling citizens how it will benefit them and/or their community?
 
Background
 
A small town in the Northeast wanted pubic input for a major public redevelopment project.  The emailed citizens in their town a link to a survey about the redevelopment project using three different strategies:

1. Ask—request that citizens take the survey.
2. Personal Benefit—suggest that the citizens benefit by making their beliefs heard.
3. Community Benefit—suggest that the community benefits when citizens take the survey and officials hear different beliefs.

 
Results
​

• 35% of those who received the “Ask” strategy took the survey.
• 40% of those who received the “Personal Benefit” strategy or the “Community Benefit” strategy took the survey.
• There was no significant difference between the “Personal Benefit” strategy and the “Community Benefit” strategy.
• Overall Lesson: Telling citizens about the benefits of taking a survey will increase response rates.

 
Authors: Daniel Butler and Eleanor Powell

Does giving legislators results of their constituents' public opinion polls change their votes?
 
Background
 
The New Mexico state legislature voted on a proposal to give citizens a one-time tax rebate.  Half of the legislators in New Mexico’s House of Representatives received a letter and email with results of opinion polls and the other half of members in the House were not given any information about the results of the polls.
 
Results
 
Legislators who learned that their district was against the one-time tax rebate were 10-25 percentage points more likely to vote against the one-time tax rebate.
 
Link to Study
​